PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)



Pages : [1] 2 3

geoff
March 18th, 2002, 04:13 AM
Jer 15: And when they say to you, "Where shall we go?" you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for pestilence, to pestilence, and those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine, and those destined for captivity, to captivity.

self explanatory I think

themuzicman
March 18th, 2002, 07:05 AM
Well, it does explain that circumstances overcome our own plans and desires.

There is no indication that God's knows existentially what each person will go through. He's just saying that no man is an island, and no one can resist the force of time and circumstance.

Nice try, but...

Michael

geoff
March 18th, 2002, 01:44 PM
music:

Well, it does explain that circumstances overcome our own plans and desires.
No, it says we are DESTINED.


There is no indication that God's knows existentially what each person will go through. He's just saying that no man is an island, and no one can resist the force of time and circumstance.
No, it says DESTINED FOR....


Nice try, but...
Yours wasnt a nice try... try again... you get an "f" for that attempt.

Jaltus
March 18th, 2002, 03:36 PM
Geoff,

Jeremiah 15: ???

You left the verse out.

geoff
March 18th, 2002, 04:26 PM
oooops hehe
Its verse 2

themuzicman
March 19th, 2002, 07:33 AM
Geoff:

Look at the verse carefully. All the items listed, Pestilence, War, Famine and Captivity, are things one man cannot control.

If pestilence or famine comes upon a group, there isn't any free will issue as to whether everyone will be affected or not. Everyone will. The happenings of nature are inextricably a part of what we are destined for. This would be like me declaring that the people of Miami are destined for a hurricane. Am I God? No. How can I make such a declaration? Hurricanes happen in Miami.

Similar argument with war and captivity. Neither a war coming to Isreal, nor the captivity of the Isreali people was something an individual could control. These things happen outside the will of the men thrown into war and taken into captivity. And, again, I can declare that people will die in wars fought, and that doesn't make me God. It means I have a basic understanding of world politics.


You're trying to make this verse sound as though what is said is some kind of massive prophecy, when the truth is that it's simply a truth of life.

Furthermore, I know that God frequently made prophecies about Isreal going into captivity, but even this does not imply foreknowledge. What it tells us is that God is active in the world today, bringing about His will, and even calls his own shots.

You make it sound as though God is just sitting in heaven, watching the world go around, and just mentioning to us what's going to happen. When you figure out that God is active and working in today's world, bringing about His will, existential foreknowledge becomes superfluous and unbiblical.


FYI, your analysis, should it come in MY class, would result in a gentle rebuke for trying to make scripture fit your theology, rather than the other way around. If it had to grade it, you'd get a 'F' for a lack of effort.

Michael

geoff
March 19th, 2002, 01:35 PM
music,

You're grasping.

You havent read Jer 15 have you?

Jaltus
March 19th, 2002, 03:45 PM
Or Jeremiah 18-20, but that is a different story...

geoff
March 19th, 2002, 04:14 PM
same story innit?

unless we have a deutero-jeremiah hehehe

(jokes jokes, just jokes)

1013
March 19th, 2002, 04:26 PM
Jaltus, the begining of jermiah 18 is significant for the open view paradigm since God anounces that he may change his plans contingently upon the response of a people that he has blessed or threatened.

graqnted Jerimaiah says, "but they will say "it is no use, we will follow our own plans..."

So does this negate the opennes contention that free choices are unknowable? At most, It may negates that free choices are always unknowable. People harden there hearts and it is reasonable that the people of israel were too far gone and there hearts were hardened to the point that what thier response would be was a clear fact of the matter. people develope habits and mindsets and thier free actions would no longer be indeterminate but instead hae been detertmined by thier past behavior. Since they could no longer change thier ways any more a lepeord his spots, only tragedy could break them out of this, thus God announced thier punishment. "I will scatter them before the enemy."

thus, this is not that problematic for the open view.

By the way, Jermiah 3:7 is the most expicite case where the open view naturally arises.

geoff
March 19th, 2002, 04:34 PM
Saying it isnt problematic isnt the same as it actually NOT being problematic.

I believe Jer 18, and Deut 18 completely annihilate the OV. They pull the rug completely from under the feet of you lot.

And yet you appeal to it as support.. I find that hilarious.

themuzicman
March 20th, 2002, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by geoff
music,

You're grasping.

You havent read Jer 15 have you?

Ooooh... Stunning rebuttal :rolleyes:

Yes, I've read it. God is simply telling the Children of Isreal what is going to happen to them. There is no implication of existential foreknowledge there at all.

Your grade is still 'F'.

Michael

themuzicman
March 20th, 2002, 07:25 AM
Gee, Jeremiah 18:11 seems to indicate an Open View. If God already knew what was going to happen, why would he need to begin the process of fashioning a plan against them? Wouldn't he already know the plan before this time?

Even the story about the potter, when the item he was working on spoiled, and he remade it into something else. If there is a metaphore there, it indicates that God changed the plans he had for Isreal, because they had spoiled. VERY open view.

Michael

geoff
March 20th, 2002, 02:06 PM
Actually the passage says that if someone listens to His prophets, God will not do that which He says He will do if they dont listen to His prophets.

It has nothing to do with -changing his mind- which is the point. God is reassuring His people that He is not a fickle, capricious God, like the Baals of the other nations.

Fact is, if God doesnt know the outcome of His dealings with Israel, He is less than the Baals, He might as well be a piece of wood, or stone crafted by human hands (any pick the imagery here). If He doesnt know what will come of His dealings with creation, how the heck is He going to bring about the future plans He has? By Guess work?

"well maybe if I say this thing to Israel, they will repent and turn back to me, but maybe they wont... well I will give it a go and see if it works... I really need them to decide one way or the other but, you know, they are such wilful people its really hard to know what they will do..."
--- 'the OV God' (crafted by human hand)

"I will say this thing to Israel, when they reject it and carry on in their evil way I will be justified in my punishing them"
"I will say this thing to This person, and they will accept it and turn from evil and I will restrain from punishing them"
--- 'the God of Scripture'

The difference is massive.

Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.

Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening:
3 And I will appoint over them four kinds of destroyers, says the Lord: the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth to devour and destroy. 4 I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what King Manasseh son of Hezekiah of Judah did in Jerusalem.
The New Revised Standard Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1989.

God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?

Jaltus
March 20th, 2002, 03:31 PM
Jeremiah 18:11 should be understood appropriately.

The correct view of the passage shows that the participle (yotzer) is generally understood as refering to the past, not the future or present. Note II Samuel 17:28, Jeremiah 33:2, Jeremiah 51:18, and Amos 7:1, all of which use the same word all of which are past. The translation is bad, and thus so are your conclusions.

geoff
March 20th, 2002, 03:40 PM
Actually that doesnt make my understanding bad at all.

It does make Musicmans bad though

1013
March 20th, 2002, 09:36 PM
The translation is bad,

what's the right one?

themuzicman
March 21st, 2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by geoff
Actually the passage says that if someone listens to His prophets, God will not do that which He says He will do if they dont listen to His prophets.

It has nothing to do with -changing his mind- which is the point. God is reassuring His people that He is not a fickle, capricious God, like the Baals of the other nations.

Fact is, if God doesnt know the outcome of His dealings with Israel, He is less than the Baals, He might as well be a piece of wood, or stone crafted by human hands (any pick the imagery here). If He doesnt know what will come of His dealings with creation, how the heck is He going to bring about the future plans He has? By Guess work?


How about by being a powerful God who understands His creation and what He needs to do to accomplish His will? Or have you neglected the omnipotent power of God? Do you honestly think that God couldn't accomplish His will without fixing the game beforehand? Such a lack of faith!



"well maybe if I say this thing to Israel, they will repent and turn back to me, but maybe they wont... well I will give it a go and see if it works... I really need them to decide one way or the other but, you know, they are such wilful people its really hard to know what they will do..."
--- 'the OV God' (crafted by human hand)


That's not what any OVer has said. God is acting as one who knows His own creation, and understands what he needs to do in order to bring them back to Himself. You talk as though you think OVers believe that we aren't influenced by what happens to us. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

This is, of course, an attempt to take God's influence in the world out of the picture, to make it seem as though the OV would be impossible.

The OVer views God, not as a hapless deity who wrings his hands and issues prophecy and holds his breath. The OVer views God as a loving, powerful, and active God who influences this world to bring about His will, in spite of us. It is a God that is far more powerful that what you determinists believe in.



"I will say this thing to Israel, when they reject it and carry on in their evil way I will be justified in my punishing them"
"I will say this thing to This person, and they will accept it and turn from evil and I will restrain from punishing them"
--- 'the God of Scripture'


This could be the rest of foreknowledge, or it could be the result of an omnicient God who knows the minds and hearts of the people He is influencing, and what the result of His actions will be. This is in no way a proof of foreknowledge. (Again, grade 'F' for being presumptive upon scripture.)



Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.


Gee, you think God can see pestilence, famine, war, and capitivity coming in the near future without foreknowledge? Do you think He could cause such things, should He wish to? Gee, I think He could. Or isn't God powerful enough to do that, in your view?

If these things are coming, there isn't anything any one man or even a group can do about it. It happens. It's a part of your destiny. Such is life.



Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening:
3 And I will appoint over them four kinds of destroyers, says the Lord: the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth to devour and destroy. 4 I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what King Manasseh son of Hezekiah of Judah did in Jerusalem.
The New Revised Standard Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1989.

God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?

Simple. Foreknowledge isn't necessary for God to do these things. God is powerful enough to allow or bring about any one of these things without having to foreknow what will happen. God can MAKE destiny happen without foreknowledge.

Michael

themuzicman
March 21st, 2002, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Jeremiah 18:11 should be understood appropriately.

The correct view of the passage shows that the participle (yotzer) is generally understood as refering to the past, not the future or present. Note II Samuel 17:28, Jeremiah 33:2, Jeremiah 51:18, and Amos 7:1, all of which use the same word all of which are past. The translation is bad, and thus so are your conclusions.

Either past or present, why would God have to fashion plans at all? If everything was pre-determined, God would have no fashioning to do.

Michael

geoff
March 21st, 2002, 01:50 PM
muzic:

Do you honestly think that God couldn't accomplish His will without fixing the game beforehand? Such a lack of faith!
There you go again, ASSuming that I am saying something I am not saying. STOP reading your agenda into my posts.

Foreknowing is not 'fixing' anything.. it is KNOWING... knowing can never have the property of 'fixing'. Its a false and erroneous assumption on your behalf.


That's not what any OVer has said. God is acting as one who knows His own creation, and understands what he needs to do in order to bring them back to Himself. You talk as though you think OVers believe that we aren't influenced by what happens to us. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

What on earth are you on about?


This is in no way a proof of foreknowledge.
Who said it was proof of anything?
It really makes me laugh when you lot have your imaginary conversations with imaginary people.... its actually kind of rude.. Imagine how your wife would feel if she asked you what you thought of her new blue dress, and you started pointing out all the things wrong with her green hair (she doesnt have green hair at all).


Foreknowledge isn't necessary for God to do these things
Wrong.

Without foreknowledge, God has no more ability to bring about the future, and bring his destiny for the world to pass than you do. Without foreknowledge, God is no better, in fact, worse of than me, because I DO have foreknowledge about some things. You have invented a god for yourself who is less than a man. Hope you're happy with him.

Jaltus
March 21st, 2002, 07:32 PM
Muz,

I do not think that God determines things, except what He tells us He determines. Thus, no problem.

1013
March 21st, 2002, 09:14 PM
Jaltus, if what I responded to in chapter 18 is similar to what is 19, which I'm too lazy to check, there is no problem for the open view.


The translation is bad

again, what is the right one?

Jaltus
March 21st, 2002, 09:19 PM
It would be,

I prepared a disaster for you...

1013
March 21st, 2002, 09:50 PM
Whether he was preparing it or he had prepared prior, the open view finds support because God could change his plan as verse 8 says. That is the typical observation of the open view.

but Music man's observation that it is present tense would be a powerful peice of evidence, to add to the contigency already recognized.

So is the participle past tense? that would be unusual and granted you say there are instances, my hebrew syntax book does not give any explicit indication that it is past and usually places it as present by way of ongoing action, immanent action, or simultaneous action, among other uses which do not clearly seem conducive to a past tense. When I'm not feeling lazy, perhaps I'll look at your counterexamples.

perhaps, your examples involve simultinaity with something in the past. that is not the case here.

geoff
March 22nd, 2002, 12:26 AM
what language is he speaking?

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2002, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by geoff
muzic:

Wrong.

Without foreknowledge, God has no more ability to bring about the future, and bring his destiny for the world to pass than you do. Without foreknowledge, God is no better, in fact, worse of than me, because I DO have foreknowledge about some things. You have invented a god for yourself who is less than a man. Hope you're happy with him.

Are you claiming to be psychic? Because that's the only way you can have true foreknowledge.

I think you've confused foreknowledge with an educated guess. The weatherman claims to predict the future, but it's only an educated guess.

Even within ourselves, we can make a decision to do something at a certain time ,but we cannot be certain that we will do it. Frequently, I haven't a clue as to what's going to happen to me 5 minutes from now. Some foreknowledge.


I realize that without foreknowledge, you lose your security blanket regarding God, and the possibility that not everything that happens is God's will is scarey for you. What you need to do is place your faith in God, rather than in foreknowledge, and allow God to be God in bringing about His will without it.

God doesn't need foreknowledge as a security blanket. Why do you?

Michael

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2002, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Muz,

I do not think that God determines things, except what He tells us He determines. Thus, no problem.

Welcome to the Open View.

Michael

1013
March 22nd, 2002, 08:33 AM
blieb

Jaltus
March 22nd, 2002, 10:32 AM
Muz,

How about Arminianism? We do not believe God determines everything, just that He already knows it. You know, the whole EDF thing.

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Muz,

How about Arminianism? We do not believe God determines everything, just that He already knows it. You know, the whole EDF thing.

Yeah, I remember. I still haven't had anyone explain how God could have created and set this universe in motion, and in the same moment existentially known exactly what was going to happen in every moment throughout history, and still claim not to be the one who determined what happened.

If the future is certain, then it was pre-determined. I don't see how you can separate the two.

Michael

Jaltus
March 22nd, 2002, 01:16 PM
foreknown does not mean determined. Knowledge is not causal. Isn't that pretty obvious?

If I am teaching someone to add, and I see two cars in one pile, then see three in another pile, and ask the person how many they have, I did not cause the answer to be 5, but I knew it ahead of time.

As for knowing how God could know, do you really think an finite mind or explanation will come close to the reality that is God? I think that may be my biggest problem with OV, that it is trying so hard to force God into our limitations.

geoff
March 22nd, 2002, 03:27 PM
Music:

I am not psychic, but there are some things that I have certain knowledge of. You keep denying its possible, but you never prove it.


I still haven't had anyone explain how God could have created and set this universe in motion, and in the same moment existentially known exactly what was going to happen in every moment throughout history, and still claim not to be the one who determined what happened
Easy. Foreknowledge is not causative. It is NOT a property that foreknowledge has. It is not determinative, because foreknowledge does NOT have the power to cause anything.
Simple, and fairly widely accepted these days (except by a few extremists)

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
foreknown does not mean determined. Knowledge is not causal. Isn't that pretty obvious?

If I am teaching someone to add, and I see two cars in one pile, then see three in another pile, and ask the person how many they have, I did not cause the answer to be 5, but I knew it ahead of time.

Because you didn't create the system by which the answer is five. The difference between you and God is that you're an observer, whereas He is the cause.

You are certain because you were taught. God would be certain because He made it that way.



As for knowing how God could know, do you really think an finite mind or explanation will come close to the reality that is God? I think that may be my biggest problem with OV, that it is trying so hard to force God into our limitations.

Actually, the OVer marvels in God's omnipotence and omnicience (and omni presence) in being able to bring about His will without fixing the end before hand. Apparantly, determinists want to limit God's power by having to fix the end before things started.

Michael

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by geoff
Music:



Easy. Foreknowledge is not causative. It is NOT a property that foreknowledge has. It is not determinative, because foreknowledge does NOT have the power to cause anything.
Simple, and fairly widely accepted these days (except by a few extremists)

No, God is the cause of everything. Without free will, God has to be the cause of everything.

Thus, when you combine God who is the cause, and foreknowledge which mandates certainty in everything, you have determinism.

Michael

geoff
March 22nd, 2002, 08:22 PM
No, God is the cause of everything. Without free will, God has to be the cause of everything.

assertion, not proven. In fact, not provable.


Thus, when you combine God who is the cause, and foreknowledge which mandates certainty in everything, you have determinism.

Ahh, no you dont.

You still have not proven, nor shown, nor can to you to any degree, that foreknowledge has the inherent property of causation.

Foreknowledge HAS NO POWER to cause. God can cause. God who has foreknowledge can cause, I can cause, I, who has forenkowledge can cause. But foreknowledge CAN NOT CAUSE. Therefore foreknowledge is NOT determinative.

Its inanimate, powerless. It cant do anything. It is knowledge, it just 'is'. One can USE foreknowledge to determine, but merely 'possessing' it does not determine.

God CAN use foreknowledge to determine (that is, cause) certain events to happen. That is not, and never will be the same as saying 'because God knows, He has determined (caused)', because 'cause' is not a property of knowing.

I have said it before, and many many scholars/philosophers have also, that you have to either prove there is are different types of foreknowledge (causal and non causal) or the idea that foreknowing is causal is wrong.

Dont just tell me that because God foreknows, and is first cause, foreknowing is causal, because that is not acceptable. We know God causes, and we know God has foreknowledge. We also know that because God foreknows some things, He causes other things. That is NOT the same as 'His foreknowing is causing'.

Right?
Clear yet?

Jaltus
March 23rd, 2002, 02:11 PM
Foreknowledge is just knowledge. In and of itself it can do nothing. OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power. A concept cannot have inherent power. Only reality can.

1013
March 23rd, 2002, 03:04 PM
OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power.

are we still on this? maybe that could be drawn from what muzicman said (sorry muz if that's not what you intend) but no professional openness theologian does this. Not even Boyd says this. At most, foreknowledge indicates, read not the power behind, but just indicates determinism and at the least negates freedom. It is not the power behind the future.

geoff
March 23rd, 2002, 07:50 PM
1013,

so you keep saying, and everytime we show you when and where you are wrong..

Surly-DwarF
March 23rd, 2002, 08:46 PM
1013 ...professional openness theologian...

Ok, ok, I won't pick on you for that :D

But I will for this:


At most, foreknowledge indicates, read not the power behind, but just indicates determinism and at the least negates freedom.

What? Forekowledge indicates determinism? I thought you believed it necessarily means it. Even I agree that if something is foreknown, it is absolutely certain to happen. Maybe I missed the gist of what you were getting at, but...as to foreknowledge negating freedom...nope, it doesn't.

Mike

themuzicman
March 24th, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Foreknowledge is just knowledge. In and of itself it can do nothing. OVers are trying to give foreknowedge itself power. A concept cannot have inherent power. Only reality can.

Both of you guys (Jaltus and Geoff) are missing key components, here.

You are correct, foreknowledge in and of itself is not causation.

However, foreknowledge requires certainty. If the future is not certain, then it cannot be known.

Furthermore, certainty can only be occur previous to the beginning of that which is certain. If there is an alterng cause that enters after something has begun, it cannot be certain.

I think we all agree that God caused the creation of the universe, and set time in motion. I believe you also assert that God has foreknown everything since creation. Thus certainty dictates that the only cause of everything that has happened is God.


So, just to recap: Foreknowledge requires certainty. Certainty eliminates subsequent altering causes. God is the initial cause. And, since everythnig is certain since the initial cause, because all is foreknown, God would have to be the cause of all things.

Which is why foreknowledge, as you present it, is unbiblical.

Michael

geoff
March 24th, 2002, 04:19 PM
However, foreknowledge requires certainty.

hahahahahaha

Surly-DwarF
March 25th, 2002, 08:09 AM
Geoff,

"Hahaha", as in you agree or disagree that foreknowledge requires certainty? I'll assume you agree it does, as will I -- it's just the conclusions muzic makes from that premise I take issue with. To wit:


themuzicman So, just to recap: Foreknowledge requires certainty.

Good so far.


Certainty eliminates subsequent altering causes.

That's a bit obtuse. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but I interpret your sentence to mean something like, "If God has certain foreknowledge then anything His creatures do they couldn't have done otherwise, and therefore are not the cause of whatever they did."

Is that right? If so, it doesn't hold water. If you don't believe it, then perhaps you can explain just how God's foreknowledge of an event and the certainty of its occurrence prevents you from having a true choice or deciding on a course of action when you have several to choose from (albeit it is certain which one you will choose) IF you have the ability to choose what seems best to you AND you have no idea what God's certain foreknowledge of the outcome is.


God is the initial cause. And, since everythnig is [b]certain since the initial cause, because all is foreknown, God would have to be the cause of [b]all things.

Yes, God is the initial cause, but the rest unfortunately (or fortunately in my view) doesn't follow. If He hadn't brought the Universe into being then no subsequent events (foreknown or otherwise) could be caused by His creatures. And by creation and foreordination He set in motion a chain reaction that "caused" the rest of history to play out in an unalterable manner, that doesn't mean that His creatures have no freedom to choose as they will. And it doesn't mean that God must force them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do in order to guarantee His foreknowledge. There are many things that are certain to happen that God does not do or perform but which are done by His creatures, and they are the immediate cause of those things. It's already been established that foreknowledge is NOT causative.


Which is why foreknowledge, as you present it, is unbiblical.

No, quite the opposite. God tells us there is nothing He does not know.

Mike

1013
March 25th, 2002, 10:39 AM
What? Forekowledge indicates determinism? I thought you believed it necessarily means it.

uh... yeah? :rolleyes:

from webster

indicate

1 a : to point out or point to b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of <the high fever indicates a serious condition> c : to demonstrate or suggest the necessity or advisability of


but...as to foreknowledge negating freedom...nope, it doesn't.

obviously I meant lfw and I definitely meant self determinism.

Surly-DwarF
March 25th, 2002, 12:04 PM
You know, you obviously have nothing to contribute to this forum, so why are you here? You're either by far the most dishonest person or the most confused person I've met here and I prefer to think it's confusion and/or some type of emotional dysfunction. I've tried to be patient, but you just don't have the ability to discuss these issues in a clear, productive manner.

geoff
March 25th, 2002, 02:10 PM
Surly,

I meant hahah as in, foreknowledge does not 'require' certainty.

Certainty may be a result of foreknowledge, but it certainly isnt a prerequisite.

Surly-DwarF
March 25th, 2002, 03:44 PM
Geoff,

Hmm, maybe I need to be more precise in the way I word things. One thing I meant to convey is that certainty is a result of foreknowledge, as you mentioned. You're right, it's not a prerequisite. But it is a necessary consequence of foreknowledge, wouldn't you say?

geoff
March 25th, 2002, 03:51 PM
Surly,

Consequence, yes, because God knows the future, and He knows it with certainty (there isnt anything He doesnt know about it).

w00t!

1013
March 25th, 2002, 04:06 PM
I see you are frustrated surly. perhaps you should pursue another hobby because this one you can't handle with the maturity of an adult.

Surly-DwarF
March 25th, 2002, 04:54 PM
Uh, yeah Geoff. That's basically what I meant ;) Do you think that I came across clearly enough in my post to muzik?

geoff
March 25th, 2002, 05:03 PM
Surly,

Yep, but he doesnt have both eyes open..

1013,

He isnt the only one who has commented on this...I can think of several...

Surly-DwarF
March 25th, 2002, 05:04 PM
1013,

There are a lot of things I can't handle with the maturity of an adult ;) But that's neither here nor there. Yeah, I guess I am a little frustrated, but not because of any inadequacy on my part, as you think. I really meant what I said, and it wasn't meant as an insult, though I can understand why your first reaction would be to take offense. I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I just...I don't know. I find it impossible to dialogue with you, so I guess I'll try not to comment any more on the things you say, unless absolutely necessary. I'm not putting you on ignore, and I didn't mean I wish you were gone for good. Not that I think you would leave just cuz I asked you to, but I don't even want you to. *Sigh*

Mike

1013
March 25th, 2002, 05:44 PM
as I said in the other thread, thanks for the apology.

as for this


Yeah, I guess I am a little frustrated, but not because of any inadequacy on my part, as you think.

It might help you to understand what I believe as I understand what I believe. Only a dialogue can hope to bring that about.



I find it impossible to dialogue with you,

the last post of mine before you posted your frustration, I honestly don't see what was so hard about what I said.

I said indicate and you attacked that but the dictionary is on my side.

I mention freedom but I expect that when I make claims about it and foreknowledge being incompatible, one would should know from dialogueing with me that I implicitly mean freedom as defined by lfw.

but if perhaps by impossible to dialogue, you mean impossible to convince, that just isn't going to happen anytime soon. That's just not the way people work.

The fact is, any view is coherent provided certain prices are paid. but as my metaphysics prof has said, it all comes down to haggling over the price. (Albeit, I have said and maintain that calvinism is incoherent, because I don't think most calvinists pay the price on the tag)

geoff
March 25th, 2002, 06:44 PM
*blink*

geralduk
April 24th, 2002, 05:10 AM
Every person born of ADAM is DOOMED and without hope in this world.

Its a good thing God is mercyfull!

In that while we were yet sinners (DOOMED TO BE DAMNED) Christ died for us.

Is there any who read these posts not worthy of death and eternal seperation from God?

NOPE!

Jesus said "sin must come but woe by whom it comes"

The generation who lived in Ninevah in Jonah's time were doomed and were PROPHECIED to as to thier destruction.
But they got WISE! and repented and THAT generation was saved,But was then the Word of God oof none effect?
NO.
For it shall NOT return unto Him void but WILL accomplish that wereunto He sent it.
For in the fullness of time the judgment that was so ordered came about.

If God was NOT mercyfull we would ALL be consumed!
and even those who know not yet God HE IS MERCYFULL TO.
For He sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

God is God!

and who can stay His hand?

Both in mercy or judgment.

"Therfore we should more earnestly give heed......."

Yxboom
May 27th, 2002, 04:50 PM
Is this going the route of pro or anti-calvanism? Or is it still to OV or not to OV? Because I am having difficulties reconciling what the most recent posts are aiming towards. To think I was so enjoying the obviousness of the OV arguments and obliviousness of the counter. :p Dont mind me the innocent bystander.

Psalms 106:40-45 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. :D

geoff
May 27th, 2002, 05:38 PM
The thread is anti OV, because OV is incoherent, both logically, and with Scripture.

The verses this discussion begins with are proof of it, or at least, offered in evidence.

So far, no decent argument has been offered against it unless you count - "I reserve the right to discount your evidence because I dont think you know what you're talking about'

If you consider that an 'obvious' answer... you need some medical help :D

Yxboom
May 27th, 2002, 07:19 PM
Let me reiterate.

Psalms 106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.



If you consider that an 'obvious' answer... you need some medical help

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
:D

geoff
May 27th, 2002, 07:52 PM
Yxboom,

Cool, you can quote a verse... however without knowing why you think this some how defeats the orthodox position, I am at a loss to know what you are on about. As far as I can see, this verse actually affirms the Non OV ie, traditional or orthodox view.

So, are u in need of a Physician?

Edgar Caiña
May 28th, 2002, 06:14 AM
Jer 15: And when they say to you, "Where shall we go?" you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for pestilence, to pestilence, and those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine, and those destined for captivity, to captivity.



self explanatory I think


There’s nothing in the verse that requires us to believe that God predestined everything and every person to a particular fate. The verse is saying that because these people rejected God, He will judge them and thus designating others to death, others to the sword, etc., which God has the right to do so. But to read this verse as saying that God predestined these people and everyone (even before they were born) in this world for that matter, to death, sword, etc. is unwarranted. Therefore, the OV still stands with this verse. In fact, down in verse 6 the LORD says that He's now weary of relenting :

You have rejected me, says the LORD,
You are going backward; so I have
stretched out my hand against you and
destroyed you - I am weary of relenting.
(Jeremiah 15:6, NRSV)

The LORD, in His disappointment with these people, designated them to judgment.

Blessings,
Edgar

1013
May 28th, 2002, 09:34 AM
excellent observation ed.

geoff
May 29th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Let me see, Jer 15:6 nacham, same as Gen 6:5-6..

it is the niphal stem:

1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

God is weary with grieving over the sinfulness of humanity... NOT with changing His mind, because He hasnt done it.

A quick word study reveals the niphal stem of nacham to have the meaning 'sorry, grieving etc, for evil commited' (strongs alone is inadequate for this purpose, as it only tells us how the KJV translators understood it... although in this case they are correct).

Edgar,

How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another... please explain how this can be explained any other way.

Edgar Caiña
May 29th, 2002, 11:32 PM
Hi! geoff,

First of all, I would like to say that I’ve no expertise or even a training in the original languages of the Scriptures, so I depend on the translations I have in my shelf. :o

Here’s my observation: The phrase “destined for” was also used by the NIV translators in Isaiah 9:5 but it is quite noticeable that the NASB translators only supplied the word “destined” to make the passage more understandable, but perhaps they didn’t see it in the original because they didn’t use it in Isaiah 9:5 as it is used in the NIV. Other translations such as the KJV and the RSV did not use the word.

Now, the way I understand this (God’s destining these people to something) is that this didn’t took place in past eternity. I understand that this action on the part of God only began when they continuously rejected God (the reason why He was so weary of grieving over their sinfulness). I would like to emphasize that the reason why God destined these people to death, sword, etc. was because of their rejection of Him and not because of some arbitrariness on the part of God. Now, if they were destined to death, sword, etc. from eternity past, it would be unintelligent of God to say He’s weary of grieving (unless He also destined Himself to grieve or when He said that He was saying something which He knows not really true at all) since He knew all along the way that these people will reject Him.

As I have stated in my previous post, I don’t see in this verse the idea that God destined ALL PEOPLE in the world to something or to some place (like heaven or hell) before they were even born.

Now, (and maybe this is what you're waiting for to hear :p ) I admit (and I think that no OV’er will deny) that there are some that God predestined to something, Christ is one example (Acts 2:23) and the Church is another (Eph. 1:4,5). But this doesn’t entail that God predestined ALL PEOPLE to something. The idea that “if God predestined some, He must have predestined all” is unwarranted in Scriptures. There are many biblical examples or cases that could be “applied” to ALL PEOPLE as well, but we don’t do that because we know it's an error to do it that way. So when we see in Scripture God predestining some people (let me ride with you for a while) to something, it would be, I THINK, erroneous to conclude that He also predestined ALL PEOPLE to something as well. ;)

His blessings be upon you,

Edgar

geoff
May 30th, 2002, 03:18 AM
Edgar,

You say that you admit that God might destine some, but not all...

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

If it is true that God does in fact have a plan, and a goal for creation, then hasnt He destined that outcome?

If God has in fact a destiny for creation, how can you say He does not have a plan for all people? Surely that means He does?

If He has a plan for all people, he must also have plans for individuals, as they make up the 'all people' group, and in order for this not to be the case we should not find any verses indicating individual, or small groups of individuals having a specific destiny.

If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this, especially when it is clear He does do it.

1013
May 30th, 2002, 09:26 AM
I think what you meant to say edgar is that God does not have a specific plan for every specific individual.

geoff
May 30th, 2002, 03:06 PM
Why dont we wait for edgar, instead of obfusicating

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 12:23 AM
Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

God’s over-all goal for creation and history that I see in scriptures is nothing but the ultimate defeat of evil and the destruction of heaven and earth (2 Peter 3:7). But if you’re telling me that for God to arrive at such goal He needs to predestine or predetermine EVRYTHING in the created universe, then I don’t believe that. And if you’re telling me that EVERYTHING that happens in the world today is God’s plan, then I would categorically reject that. Because we all know that for the most part the world is dominated by evil. I can’t imagine how could some Christians believe that a rape and murder of a 4-year old girl to be God’s plan! That happened last year here in the Philippines. A 4-yr old was raped and then crushed her head to death with a brick by a drug addict. Was that God’s plan for that little girl? There's a news today here in Manila (i'll give the link once it becomes available in the internet) involving a little girl who was taken by a hostager. The negotiation apparently didn't materialize and she was stabbed to death several times. Was that God's plan for her? Did God destined her to that horrible death? If that is what you call God's specific plan for specific individuals, then I don't buy it.



…hasn’t He destined that outcome?

Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8)



…how can you say that He doesn’t have a plan for all people?

Well, God has plans and has an ultimate plan. But God having a plan doesn’t necessarily mean He meticulously predetermined or predestined EVERYTHING before creation. Though we have roles to play in His providential plan, it doesn’t require us to believe that He predestined or predetermined us to something in order for God to arrive at His goal. There are instances in scriptures what God wants, God doesn’t get. His purpose for us is that we do not disobey, but many times we do. Men thwart his purpose most of the times (Luke 7:30; Acts 13:46). When God someday announces, “Check mate!” It doesn’t necessarily mean that He predestined every move of His “opponent’s” pieces. If we believe that God is all-powerful and infinitely wise, it should be no problem to us believing that He can have a plan and yet never predestined EVERYTHING and EVERYONE to SOMETHING from eternity past.

geoff
May 31st, 2002, 02:12 AM
Edgar:


But if you’re telling me that for God to arrive at such goal He needs to predestine or predetermine EVRYTHING in the created universe, then I don’t believe that

I didnt say EVERYTHING 'needs' to be predestined at all. YOu have made that conclusion yourself. Obviously that is where the evidence leads you so far. I would say that everything is 'foreknown', rather than predestined.


And if you’re telling me that EVERYTHING that happens in the world today is God’s plan, then I would categorically reject that. Because we all know that for the most part the world is dominated by evil.

What I said was, that God has a definite plan, and He is bringing about this plan. It would seem that part of this plan involves bringing individuals into the group know as 'The Israel Of God' - whom are His Children.
EVerything that happens is foreknown, but that is not to say it is predestined. Again, I did not say it was.


Did God destined her to that horrible death? If that is what you call God's specific plan for specific individuals, then I don't buy it.
God foreknew her death, but I have not said He predestined it... that is your conclusion.


Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8)

This so far is what is called a straw man, you are arguing against a view that I have not presented.


Well, God has plans and has an ultimate plan. But God having a plan doesn’t necessarily mean He meticulously predetermined or predestined EVERYTHING before creation.

Yes God has a plan, and a goal, not only for creation, but obviously, according to Scripture, for humanity, groups of humanity, and individuals. However, I have NOT said that every little thing is predestined.

BTW, 'eternity-past' is a concept that is senseless in respect for God. Thats another discussion though.

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 07:05 AM
God foreknew her death, but I have not said He predestined it... that is your conclusionHi geoff,

I just thought we're discussing the word "destine" (to mean predestine) from Jeremiah 15:2. Im sorry. Just like I've said to geralduk in the other post, being a Filipino who's not so very good in English, sometimes i really don't get what you're saying English people. Im sorry, I never thought you mean "foreknowledge." :o

So my post should have been addressed to a predestination guy and not to you. Im very sorry for missing the point.



I would say that everything is 'foreknown', rather than predestined.


EVerything that happens is foreknown, but that is not to say it is predestined.

I want make it clear now. Did you say everything and everything that happens is foreknown by God? When you say EVRYTHING do you mean ALL THINGS as in everything WITHOUT exception? Does this include even the future free choice of an individual?

Yxboom
May 31st, 2002, 08:43 AM
Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

1013
May 31st, 2002, 08:43 AM
Filipino who's not so very good in English, sometimes i really don't get what you're saying English people.

You're english is fine. confusion when discussing things with geoff happens quite naturally regardless of one's abilities in english ;)

Yxboom
May 31st, 2002, 08:43 AM
Isaiah 5:1-7 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

geoff
May 31st, 2002, 02:48 PM
Edgar,

The problem was not that we were discussing different things, we are in fact discussing 'destine' - however, you have created a false understanding of how I view 'destine' and are arguing against it.

When I mention foreknowledge, I do so to clear up your misunderstanding. Yes, God has perfect knowledge, and knowledge of all things. That is completely different to 'destining' all things.


I want make it clear now. Did you say everything and everything that happens is foreknown by God? When you say EVRYTHING do you mean ALL THINGS as in everything WITHOUT exception? Does this include even the future free choice of an individual?

Yes.

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 08:00 PM
Hi geoff,

however, you have created a false understanding of how I view 'destine' and are arguing against it.

Not so. I did not create a false understanding of it. The usual understanding of the word "destine" is different from the usual understanding of the word "foreknowledge". Perhaps, and maybe, that's the reason why calssical Arminianism believes in the Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge of God while rejecting individual and cosmic predestination.

I looked up the dictionary this morning and I don't see any similarity between the two words. Here's what the dictionary says:


destine 1: to decree beforehand: PREDETERMINE 2a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance 2b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place.

foreknow : to have previous knowledge of : known beforehand esp. by paranormal means or by revelation.

Meriam Webster'sCollegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition

Now, before we go further, will you please provide me a reference (biblical or non-biblical) where the two words mean exactly the same thing? Otherwise, I'll take it to mean that you're the one confusing things here.

One last thing, you said that I...

created a false understanding of how I (i.e., you) view 'destine'
If that's the case here, then I can also have my own view of what a dog is when in fact Im referring to a cat. In that case 1013 was right with his last post. In that case also, Im out of here. God bless you real good.

geoff
May 31st, 2002, 08:19 PM
Edgar,

I am not discussing 'foreknow' with you, but destine. I brought up 'foreknow' in order to clarify the misunderstanding that I believe God has predestined (caused etc) every little thing from the beginning to the end. I never claimed this to be the case, but it seems to be what you are arguing against.

You brought up Jeremiah, which I showed does not mean what you assumed it means. I then pointed out that there is a destiny for creation, for humanity, and for individuals within humanity, both as groups of the elect and non elect, as well simple individuals. This was in respect to you saying that God does not have a destiny for individuals.

If you want to discuss foreknow, I will gladly talk to you about it, but at this stage, I have only mentioned it for clarification.

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 10:39 PM
geoff,

That's exactly what i thought; that we're discussing "destine." In fact I just responded to what you said
hasnt He destined that outcome?
If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this Even in your previous posts I knew you were discussing "destine"
[quote]3-18-2002

No, it says we are DESTINED.
No, it says DESTINED FOR....


03-20-2002
Back to the original verse.

God uses the word DESTINED. Also "those" and "they" and "them" to indicate specific peoples and groups of peoples made up of individuals.

Destined indicates caused. Verse 3-4 is enlightening: ...

05-29-2002
Edgar,

How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another... please explain how this can be explained any other way.

So I knew all along very well that we're discussing destine, which according to you, God destined people to something based on the above quotes. Then I asked you
Do you believe that he destined the horrible demise of that little girl? Do you believe that He destined the gruesome death of those Christians who were burned to death while sleeping in a Hotel in Metro Manila after attending a Christian Seminar? Do you believe that He destined Saul to rebel against Him? Do you believe that He destined the injustices in the world? If He did destine the injustices in this world, why do we cry for justice and why did He promise justice at the end? (Luke 18:7-8) But you charged me of using a "straw man", me arguing against a view that you did not present. But you said it
How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another I would like to ask now, were people destined to something or not?

Edgar

geoff
May 31st, 2002, 10:42 PM
Edgar,

I said NO.

I said I believe God FOREKNEW these things, but not that He had necessarily 'destined' them.

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 10:49 PM
And what do you mean by these
God will do, appoint, make.
God will cause these things.
God has destined these things

How do you get around that?


How you do explain away the word 'destined' - it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another

geoff
May 31st, 2002, 10:59 PM
I mean, "it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another"

Edgar Caiña
May 31st, 2002, 11:16 PM
No further question, your honor!

geoff
June 1st, 2002, 12:11 AM
I have no idea what you mean by that

geralduk
June 10th, 2002, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by geoff
I mean, "it clearly says God 'destined' - if God destines people for one thing or another, then God destines people for one thing or another"

The DESTINATION of those who WILL NOT believe is preordained.
The DESTINATION of those who WILL is also preordained.

The ETERNAL WILL AND PURPOSE and therefore preordained PLAN of God for MAN has also NEVER changed even from the beginning.

When a person gets saved he then ENTERS INTO that preordained plan and WILL of God.
For He has repented and is once again beleiving Gods Word.

While a person is yet unsaved he is heading in the same direction as the one whos word he is believing.

The seed of the serpent produces its own fruit.

The Seed of the Word also produces its own fruit.

and each seed brings forth after its own kind.

Edgar Caiña
June 10th, 2002, 04:52 AM
The DESTINATION of those who WILL NOT believe is preordained.
The DESTINATION of those who WILL is also preordained.

It's quite appealing to me since what was preordained was not MAN but the DESTINATION. But the question is, how could God preordain a DESTINATION if He did not also FOREKNOW/PREDESTINE those who will go there?

geoff
June 10th, 2002, 05:17 AM
Edgar,

The point is, how do you explain away the Scriptures, which say exactly that?

Surly-DwarF
June 10th, 2002, 06:59 AM
Yeah, how? I believe everything and everyone is predestined.

geoff
June 10th, 2002, 07:26 AM
well, thats got to be better than believing only somethings are, depending on which way the wind is blowing today, like OV...

(even though I dont agree with 'everything' only 'everyone')

1013
June 10th, 2002, 03:42 PM
But the question is, how could God preordain a DESTINATION if He did not also FOREKNOW/PREDESTINE those who will go there?

I don't see the problem. God can just say "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't." Now in describing that, have I given an exhaustive list of all the damned for hell and an exhaustive list for the church? Not at all. everything to predestine two destinations is written right here in this paragraph. "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't."

Actually, those who are predestined to go to those places are clearly indicated right here in my post. "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't."

Here are two vague groups yet clear as to what about them has been predestined and yet there is still no exhaustive list of individuals any where to be found here. As to who is specifically in these groups, it really doesn't matter as far as a plan goes.

Surly-DwarF
June 10th, 2002, 04:06 PM
Geoff,

Hmm, ok. I probably shouldn't have said "every thing" cuz that's somewhat ambiguous. I meant all events, or everything that comes to pass a la the Westminster Confession.

geoff
June 10th, 2002, 04:18 PM
Surly

Good good :D

1013,

God doesn just say 'heres hell and here's heaven' - He also says I know your thoughts, your name, I formed you, I chose you, I know your heart, I know which people believe and which dont, etc etc

You can not say "here's hell for those who reject me and here's heaven for those who don't." as if its an answer. Its way too simplistic, and really only tells a minute fraction of the story.

1013
June 10th, 2002, 04:21 PM
MIke knows this so now I'm explaining this for your benefit Edgar. I do not discuss things with geoff. If anything he says makes sense and you're curious as to how I'd answer it, You'd have to ask me yourself.

geoff
June 10th, 2002, 04:45 PM
and I, for one, consider myself the luckiest man on this forum :D

geralduk
June 11th, 2002, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by geoff
well, thats got to be better than believing only somethings are, depending on which way the wind is blowing today, like OV...

(even though I dont agree with 'everything' only 'everyone')

Its not the way the wind blows that determins the goal but the set of the sail!
The SAME wind can be blowing for all the yachts but the DIRECTION that they go is determined by the way the sails are set.
The scroiptures puts it like this:
As a tree leans thats the way it falls.

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 02:40 AM
That maybe true, but which ever direction you go in, there is always only one fast, direct route to the finish line...

geralduk
June 11th, 2002, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by geoff
Edgar,

You say that you admit that God might destine some, but not all...

Answer me this, does creation have a Goal, is there a purpose to which God is moving History? Does God have a final intention for creation?

If it is true that God does in fact have a plan, and a goal for creation, then hasnt He destined that outcome?

If God has in fact a destiny for creation, how can you say He does not have a plan for all people? Surely that means He does?

If He has a plan for all people, he must also have plans for individuals, as they make up the 'all people' group, and in order for this not to be the case we should not find any verses indicating individual, or small groups of individuals having a specific destiny.

If there are individuals who are destined, and groups of individuals who are destined, and all people who have a destiny, there is really no good reason to assume that God does not do this, especially when it is clear He does do it.

The ETERNAL WILL AND PLAN for creation and for man in particular is found in Genesis.

That has NEVER changed.

Man was and is designed and therfore capable of living by Gods knowledge and wisdom.
To forsake the life of the flesh,overcome the devil,
and become "partakers of the divine nature"
To learn the pattern of God and "Go and do likewise"according as I have shown thee.

When a person gets saved he ENTERS into that ETERNAL plan of God.
God planted a garden and laid down the laws of the seed.
Each producing after its own kind.
and as each seed can do no other.
They are predestined to so do!
The seed is in the FRUIT.
Now what you sow you WILL reap.
Therefore if you sow after the flesh you will reap death.
But after the Spirit,LIFE.
Thererfore the arguments about who will be saved or not is NOT the point!
The point is how much is being SOWED!
For if we SOW sparingly we will REAP sparingly!
Now to those who say this or that will go up or down.
Who are we?
But of the same clay as those who are as yet not saved!
Are we in ourselves by NATURE any DIFFERENT?
no! AND TWICE no!
So what then is the difference?
Some one SOWED the GOOD seed in our lives and were FAITHFULL enough to pray for that which had gone forth not to return without FRUIT!
The souls of men are in our hands andf the church.
and we will have to give an account for those we have neglected.
God sowed genereously.
For unless the seed fall into the ground and die it abideth alone.
But if it fall and die it bringeth forth MUCH fruit.
So where in do we glory?
Seeing it is in Him and by His grace that wer are saved.
Are we then who are saved soemhow more worthy than another?
NO!
So why is there disputes about who will be saved!
The message is to ALL!!
and whosoever from among the all will believe shall be saved.
How then can WE say who?
For are we not to" cast our bread upon the waters...."
We are to sow the WHOLE of the feild.
so that EACH person wil have the OPERTUNITY to be saved and if they believe they WILL be!
But by arguing about who will be puts division in the mind and uncertainty in the heart and no faith for those to whom you talk/preach to.
Not only are we to HEAR with faith but also to PREACH infaith also!
If in our thinking we are uncertain of who will be how then can you have faith.
And if you say we do not need to know who.
You have by such talk ALREADY denied SOME!
So you LIMIT God as to what HE can do to those with whom you talk/preach to.
and if you limit God you must therfore have no FAITH in God to do that which He has said HE WILL DO!
For My Word shall not return unto me void,but shall ACOMPLISH that wherein I have sent it"
This applies to the Lord who is the Word made flesh.
As it aplies to the preaching!

Now does that mean I believe everyone will be saved?
NO.
But it does mean that when I preach or speak to one or many I can do so with the realisation and the liberty that comes from if God can save me the chiefest of sinners,He can save ANYBODY!

geralduk
June 11th, 2002, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by geoff
That maybe true, but which ever direction you go in, there is always only one fast, direct route to the finish line...

For the salvation of the soul yes.
But each person has to sail his own boat as it were through life and seek to do the will of God in it.
But if the sails are SET aright.No matter HOW the wind blows,for good or ill you will always be sailing in the right direction.

The journey is not always plain sailing.

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 05:22 AM
ANd just because you have sails, and have them set, you are not always heading in the right direction....

geralduk
June 11th, 2002, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by geoff
ANd just because you have sails, and have them set, you are not always heading in the right direction....

You miss the point.
Most people do not even get out of the harbour.
But once they do there is every "wind of doctrin "to blow them about.wether christian or otherwise!
The way we set our sail is ......
FIRST seek the kingdom of God and HIS rightousness.THEN all the things we need in the fullfillment of THAT purpose WILL BE ADDED UNTO US.
If God is out aim and the doing of HIS will.
WE may well find out that we will be able to walk upon the waters,which is alot easier than those struggling to row or sail.
The use of the idea of the SAME wind blowing but the DIRECTION the boat goes is not determined BY the wind but the set of the sail.
Wether you are going right or wrong!
Now if you do not know you are going in the right direction then ................
Wheres your compass?
That unchanging point by which all compasses work.
The north star.FIXED sure and certain.
The wind may blow.
But they are not affected by the wind.so we set our course by them.
and the ONLY unchanging thing in this world is the nature and character and disposition and person Of God Himself.
Who is the same yesterday today and forever.
and He who set our course and is the pilot of our ship and we will by His grace and infinite mercy enable us to finish the course set out before us.till we reach the harbour of that promised land.
Wether sunny or stormy.
But in truth the storm clouds are already on the horizon.
and we need to battenndown the hatches.
be sure of our ship.
and have the the flag nailed to the masthead.

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 03:52 PM
ah well..

I really do dispise speaking metaphorically anyway :D

Jaltus
June 11th, 2002, 04:40 PM
It's despise, just so you know.

<waves at geoff, then goes back to lurking>

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 05:07 PM
Hey dude, ltns..

Yeah I know its despise.. but my fingers dont do what my mind tells em most of the time

lol

Where have u been?

Jaltus
June 11th, 2002, 08:32 PM
Busy starting my Ph D. How goes it?

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 08:55 PM
Not bad..

Not bad at all...

preaching every sunday... defeating the evil OV at every turn... you know, the usual mwahahahahahahaha

Whats your thesis on?

Edgar Caiña
June 11th, 2002, 10:50 PM
Hi Surly,

You said,
I meant all events, or everything that comes to pass a la the Westminster Confession.

One of the problems I have with that view is that it posts a question on the GENUINENESS of God’s interaction with man. If it is true that He predestined everything (and I took it to mean all things, as in everything without exceptions) that comes to pass, then how could He be genuinely serious with the following accounts?


Genesis 6:5,6 - The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. How could He genuinely say that He was grieved by man’s sin if He Himself predestined them to turn out like this?


Exodus 32:9,10 - "I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."How could He genuinely get angry with these people if He was the one who predestined them to be such stiff-necked people?


1 Samuel 15:10,11, 26,28 - 10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
26 But Samuel said to him, "I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord , and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!"
28 Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors-to one better than you. Did He predestine king Saul’s dethronement only to predestine again king David to the throne? How could He be genuinely serious grieving over Saul’s failure if Himself predestined Saul’s failure?


Matthew 23:37 - 37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. How could He genuinely feel sorrow over Jerusalem’s UNWILLINGNESS to let God gather her children together if He’s in the first place who predestined Jerusalem’s unwillingness?


Luke 7:30 - But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John. Did He predestine His own purpose to be rejected by these men?

Would you help me reconcile these things please in the light of the view that everything that comes to pass is predestined by God?

Grace and peace be yours,
Edgar

geoff
June 11th, 2002, 11:11 PM
Edgar,

How on earth does predestining anything PREVENT geniune feelings?

ALL the examples you have given are to do with FOREKNOWLEDGE and not predestining. So, you will also have to explain how foreknowing prevents genuine emotion.

Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it?

No.

So please demonstrate to us how this differs for God. And why it should be different for God. Then please demonstrate why we should believe that foreknowledge should have these radical properties, which seemingly have only come into existence with the advent of the OV.

geralduk
June 12th, 2002, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by geoff
ah well..

I really do dispise speaking metaphorically anyway :D

The use of the earthly principles to shed light on heavenly ones is a sound one.and used by the Lord.
So we can also use them if they harmonise with scripture.
We should be happy for any means to helpus understand things .
But ist ok if you dont like using such examples you dont have to.
But youl forgive me I hope if I continue to do so:))

geoff
June 12th, 2002, 04:27 AM
what ever... it doesnt much help a logical argument though... however its nice to help illustrate a point in a sermon...

sermons arent much good here though

Edgar Caiña
June 12th, 2002, 04:55 AM
There you go again geoff. I'm asking Surly with his view of predestination, so please, dont confuse the issue with your FOREKNOWLEDGE stuff!

But I'll bite. OK.
Example, if you have a child who you know is going to do something that might hurt them, and you know that you are going to have to let them hurt themselves for various reasons, are you some how precluded from feeling genuine emotion because you foreknew it? You see, you're missing the point. If the issue Surly and I are in is foreknowledge, there could have been "no" problem as you supposed. But Surly and I are in PREDESTINATION issue. If YOU predestined your child to hurt by a certain thing or event before he/she is even born then how could you say you'll have genuine feeling of grief when he/she is hurt? You're the one who set the whole thing up in the first place. In fact, you dont only know that he/she is going to do something that might hurt him/her, you also predestined him/her to do that, how then can you say you're genuinely grieved if in the first place you set the whole thing up?

geoff
June 12th, 2002, 08:00 AM
You made a comment in a public forum...

Surly's view of predestination may or may not be wrong. The point is, what you are actually talking about is foreknowledge, and foreknowledge is not predestination.

1013
June 12th, 2002, 09:08 AM
Edgar has an excellent grasp of what he's talking about. It's predestination.

Edgar Caiña
June 12th, 2002, 09:27 AM
Thanks, 1013... well Im starting to KNOW geoff... He always makes me think... he always makes me think what kind of guy he is...

you're right, 1013... you're INDEED right, man (remember my first encounter with geoff?)! Salamat at Mabuhay!!

geoff, may i know from what planet are you from?? Your avatar seems to reveal something huh... you're strange man... very strange... at least to me...:p :cool: :D

1013
June 12th, 2002, 10:28 AM
For the sake of arguement Edgar, I'm going to say that its reasonable that one should plan something and still feel grief or anxiouty about it. Suppose a devout Jewish mother is married to a goy who isn't relgious and they are not in a country where all the children are routinely circumsised for health reasons (like in the US). The mother may insist on a bris, but in the act as the rabbi is performing the ritual, she's going to feel a little intense while the baby screams as many women, specifically mothers, do at brises.

However, I still don't see that one can plan to "regret" (a specific type of grief) an action that they planned unless they feel that what they planned was a mistake and they change there mind about the judgement that went into the plan.

BTW, as moderator, I'd ask that you not goad on geoff... even if he deserves it :D

geoff
June 12th, 2002, 03:50 PM
goad on me as much as you like,,,

You lot seem to live in your own little world were the logic and principles that govern the rest of creation have magically disappeared, and you have created your own....

Thats the problem with the OV, it makes humans God, and makes God human.

Surly-DwarF
June 12th, 2002, 04:46 PM
Hi Edgar,

Let me commend you on your grasp of English. It's quite good for a non-native speaker. I don't have time to get in-depth with your questions right now, but I would suggest that Geoff is not wrong to bring foreknowledge into the discussion because you can't talk about predestination without foreknowledge, and vice-versa. I think :D

Mike

geoff
June 12th, 2002, 06:42 PM
so many people round here are so quick to think they have all the answers.... many of them are also slow to think they have all the answers... they are still wrong.

Edgar Caiña
June 12th, 2002, 07:49 PM
Hi Surly,

Thanks for the commendation. Actually, that's what I believe, that you cannot separate the two. But my experience with geoff made me more cautious in using these terms, because to him, you can have one without the other.

Hey geoff,

Cmon man, we're just having fun. Nothing personal folk. We're all friends here though our beliefs and views aren't. Peniel use to have fun with my name. He calls me Edgar Cayce, Edgar the Canaanite and that's fine, because I know he's just having fun with my name, but normally Filipinos don't like that (maybe Peniel knows that that's why he does that to my name). You better call a Filipino by his name if you dont want any trouble. So geoff, peace, man, peace! Im very sorry for crossing the boundary, my apology, please.... :cry:

drdeutsch
June 12th, 2002, 07:53 PM
Geoff,
I've read the entire thread.

so many people round here are so quick to think they have all the answers.... many of them are also slow to think they have all the answers... they are still wrong.

I can only assume this doesn't include you, right?
If I may, I'd like to get back to Jeremiah 15:2 .
The word "destine" is not included in the Hebrew. You obviously know this.
The Interlinear NIV translates it thus:

And if they ask you, "Where shall we go?" tell them, "This is what the Lord says: 'Those for the death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity.' 'I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,' declares the Lord, 'the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy. I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem.'

The Septuagint translation by Lancelot Brenton renders it this way:

And it shall be, if they say to thee, whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt say to them, thus saith the Lord; as many as are for death, to death; and as many as are for famine, to famine; and as many as are for the sword, to the sword; and as many as are for captivity, to captivity. And I will punish them with four kinds of death, saith the Lord, the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the wild beasts of the earth, and the birds of the sky to devour and destroy. And I will deliver them up for distress to all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasses son of Ezekias king of Juda, for all that he did in Jerusalem.

The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.

I just have one question for you, Geoff. You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim, but you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View. First of all, that's not a very strong argument. Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.

Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent so that He could repent (ch. 18).

Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?

Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 12th, 2002, 08:58 PM
drd,

regardless of whether the word actually exists, the passage certainly indicates a certain destination for certain people. Many modern translations add the word because it fits contextually, and conveys the correct meaning of the passage. If it didnt, it wouldnt be there.


The fact is, Geoff, that no Hebrew word for "destine" or "predestine" appear in the OT. At least not according to my exhaustive Strong's concordance. So, now that we can all agree that "destine" does not appear in the verse, maybe we can talk about it.

Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.


You claim that no one uses Scripture to back up your claim
Any verse that indicates God predestining anyone defeats the open view, because the open view claims, by default, that God does not generally predestine people (even though some might concede that he predestines the odd person/thing from time to time).



I think you'll find it was others claiming that *I* never use scripture to back up my claims. However, I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum. I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated, so I really dont care any more.


you have only quoted Jeremiah 15:2 and said it completely destroys the Open View.

Its one of many. The 66 books of the Bible destroy the open View, because it isnt found in it.


First of all, that's not a very strong argument

Any scripture that indicates a destiny for individuals, groups of individuals, and for humanity defeats the open view. Simple.


Secondly, let's suppose God did "predestine" certain people to die by the sword, famine, or pestilence. Where in Scripture does it say this happened? I'm not asking to doubt you, but I truly don't know where, when, or if it happened.

Think about it. God says that he has send some to death, some to starvation, some to captivity... and He has... and He did.



Another question, when God said "I will appoint over them four forms of destruction..." why did He then say 3 chapters later that "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [nacham] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it"? As far as I know, God did not punish them between chapters 15 and 18. Rather, He had some conversations with Jeremiah and then gave them another chance to repent (ch. 18).

He didnt. All are doomed to destruction because of Sin, thats why they need to hear the word of God and repent in the first place. You have made a false association of verses here. They are from different contexts and its a fallacy to combine them as if they are talking about the same thing.


Can you explain to me how, according to your view, God destined these people to die (which isn't supported by Scripture) and then didn't do it but offered them another chance to repent?

See above.
BTW, you havent PROVED God didnt destine people for destruction, just pointed out the word doesnt exist in the passage. You will have to find an alternate meaning for the passage other than what you seem to agree it means... in order to do this. The passage context certainly indicates appointing or destining regardless of whether the word is there or not.

drdeutsch
June 12th, 2002, 09:15 PM
Geoff,

It wasn't my purpose to prove that God didn't predestine those people for death. I just wanted to hear your explanation.

Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.

As for Strong's giving me a meaning, I agree. However, you can search all of the OT. You won't find a Hebrew word for "predestine." At least I didn't. Only the NT has the word for "predestine," proorizo, and it occurs in only 6 places.

(1) Acts 4:28
(2) Romans 8:29, 30
(3) 1 Corinthians 2:7
(4) Ephesians 1:5
(5) Ephesians 1:11

Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.

You cannot simply say that the people of Israel did die by death, sword, and famine, because there is no historical or scriptural proof that I know of to back it up. God said He would do it, and He didn't, as far as I know. Maybe He didn't do it yet. Is there any Scriptural proof that tells us this punishment by four kinds of death is still coming? Is the verse speaking of the tribulation? If it is, then it presents no problem to the Open View. Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.

Dr. Deutsch

drdeutsch
June 12th, 2002, 09:28 PM
Geoff,


Strongs at best will give you an idea what the word means, and it can only ever really tell you how the KJV translators saw the meaning of the word.

So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.


I have been posting here for 4 years and made something more than 5000 posts through various incarnations of this forum.

That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.


I have heard all the OV arguments, and seen them all defeated,

well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.


so I really dont care any more.

I can't believe you said this. Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God? Your theology, however it is viewed by others, is still your theology. If you believe in it, that is what is important. I may not agree, but (and I may be stretching it here) I see it as a sort of "Christian duty" to help spread the word and bring others to Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.

Geoff, the problem I see with many Calvinists (and I'm not singling you out here, just stating an observation) is that they are afraid, as Christ might say, to "get a new wineskin, and fill it with new wine (a la Matt 9:17)." I was raised Catholic. I never really liked going to mass, and I didn't pay much attention. About a year ago, I met a Calvinist. She showed me some scripture and I was a Calvinist. I really got into theology. But, I thought I had better read some opposition to the view. Since then, I've been reading message boards, forums, articles, from Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I finally became an Open Theist because their arguments were more Scriptural, more solid, in my opinion.
The point is, Geoff, is that I am hungry for knowledge, and I always open the bible ready for "new wine." If you would use more scripture to support it, to guide me and teach me, I would sincerely look into it and contrast your arguments with Scripture. However, you are not doing that. You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.

You should be ashamed that you don't "care anymore." What would the members of your church think about that?

Dr. Deutsch

1013
June 12th, 2002, 10:19 PM
Hello Dr. Deutch.

It's good to have yet another ov'er on the board.


That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it.

I'd like to point out that it is worth while to discuss one scripture in a thread. You say that it can be taken out of context, but then it is perfectly relevent to the topic to show that it has been taken out of the context, and what you have done to that effect I would say is pretty worthwhile. You could also bring up other scriptures that indicate the opposite of what is claimed specifically about the scripture that was brought up, but it is still beneficial then even if the person who starts the topic wants to say "well let's say for the sake of argument that those scriputures may be wrong or scripture may be inconsistent because for the moment, I don't care to deal with them. If you can't provide a decent alternative understanding to the issue, then as far as this thread is concerned, you have a problem."

also Geoff isn't a calvinist. He isn't arminian either. At most we could say that he is anti-ov. :eek:

geoff
June 13th, 2002, 12:21 AM
DRD

So, you claim to know how pre-Christ Jews used the word? Where did you get this information? I'd appreciate it if you'd "share the wealth," so to speak.

All I did was state a fact regarding Strongs. In typical OV style you have read into it meaning that isnt there.


That may very well be, but in this thread, you have only presented Jeremiah 15:2 and no other verses to support it. One verse, taken entirely out of context, never helped further any theology, whether Calvinistic or Open View.

Demonstrate how I have taken it out of context.


well, I've read several message boards, read all of the Calvinistic arguments (I've read Calvin as well), and seen all of the Calvinistic arguments defeated, with Scripture.

I'm not a Calvinist.

Rule #1. It is irrational and false to lump people into general groups. OV'ers tend to call everyone who isnt an OV'er, or demonstrates any sort of leaning to traditionalism a Calvinist. Every argument that begins with this presupposition, as this one has (and in fact virtually all OV arguments do), is false.

Rule #2. Dont call me a Calvinist unless you can prove I am one.


I can't believe you said this.

Of course you can. Pelagianism, and a changable God has NEVER been accepted as true. Its a same old untruth regurgitated in a slightly different format.


Does not the bible teach us to spread the glorious Word of God?

I never said it didnt. The OV isnt the word of God, its the philsophical musings of a bunch of humanistic theologians.


You should be ashamed of yourself for not caring anymore. Especially as a Pastor.

I dont care about the Open View. That does not mean I dont care about people. As Jesus said, I am here for the ones who need help, not the ones who claim to already have the answers. I'm here because I love to see what outlandish idea the OV mind will come up with next. Its helpful for sermons, and it helps me to keep the truth clear in my own mind and hone my own argument..


You (and, I admit, other posters on this thread, including myself) are merely making claims and not backing them up with Scripture. Again, one verse, taken out of context, is not proof.

Quoting one verse is not taking a verse out of context, especially if it is used to make a point in context, which it was.


Also, Jeremiah, at least Chapters 15-18, is one long conversation between God and Jeremiah. Nothing happens but talk. God tells Jeremiah in chapter 15 that He will bring famine, pestilence, and death. Then they talk some more... and in Chapter 18 God says that if Israel will turn from their evil ways, He will repent. It's that simple. Nowhere in the middle did death, famine, or pestilence come.

There was no indication that it was supposed to come in between those 2 chapters.


Reading these passages, Geoff, it becomes quite clear that it is a corporate predestination. Namely, that of the Body of Christ - all of those who have chosen or will choose to believe in God and accept Christ as their saviour.

This 'group', corporately destined is made up of who? People, individuals, known by name, by the hairs on their head, and called by name (see the example of the calling of the disciples) by God. So we are told in Scripture. Claiming it is a 'body' of people does not negate anything.


Unless I'm wrong, Open View Theists believe that the End Times - Rapture, tribulation, second coming of Christ - has been predestined and therefore foreknown by God.

Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.

drdeutsch
June 13th, 2002, 07:58 AM
Well,
I thought I'd give it a shot.

I am, in the end, inclined to agree with 1013 and everyone else here who refuses to "discuss" things with Geoff.

I feel sorry for the members of his church that question something he brought up in a sermon.

I can see there are plenty of other threads here.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Surly-DwarF
June 13th, 2002, 10:21 AM
First thing,

Edgar and drdeutsch. Geoff isn’t a bad guy. He is strongly anti-OV and doesn’t hesitate to say what he really thinks, and I think you guys may be feeling a bit oversensitive due to that fact. Not that he needs or wants me to defend him. Of course, we’re all human and don’t always act with the greatest charity towards others, especially those we have strong areas of disagreement with. But moving on…


Geoff Contrary to what Surly said (sorry surly) - you can NOT equate predestination and foreknowledge. To do so gives foreknowledge the property of causation, and it can not, and does not have that property, as is easily demonstrated.

Geoff,

If I equated them, it was not my intent. Looking back at what I said, I don’t think I did. I just meant that it’s really difficult to discuss one without the other. Of course, I agree that foreknowledge doesn’t = causation. Let me try to explain what I meant. If we consider God and what He knows prior to Creation, and grant that He has foreknowledge of everything that will come to pass, whether those things will be caused by Him directly or freely performed by creatures, then if He proceeds and effectuates that potential creation, by virtue of His certain foreknowledge, everything that comes to pass has been predestined. When there was just God and He knew everything that would happen after He set the Creation in motion, at the “point” (if we can call it that) that He decided to actually bring the world into being, it was predestined. So, in other words, they're NOT the same thing, but you can't have predestination without foreknowledge.

Mike

1013
June 13th, 2002, 01:59 PM
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

I don't think your view flys with this second article on God's eternal decree in the westminster confession, which is alright if you don't adhere to it. But it is a calvinist standard

1013
June 13th, 2002, 02:07 PM
2nd post, scroll up


I am, in the end, inclined to agree with 1013 and everyone else here who refuses to "discuss" things with Geoff.

my decision not to talk with Geoff is based on a specific history. Some of the things between me and Geoff that have precipited my decision not to discuss things with him have not necessarily gone on in this thread. If you feel geoff has shown good reason for avoidance in this thread, that's fine, but don't let what little I've said influence you.


I thought I'd give it a shot.

It's always worth a shot.

geoff
June 13th, 2002, 04:38 PM
DRD..

If you dont want to talk to me, thats fine.. However, ask yourself this... what have I really done to upset you?

The ONLY thing I have really done is not believe that there is any truth in the OV. And that seems to have upset you. I have also been a little sarcastic, but thats just me, if you cant handle it, then dont talk to me.

Mike (Surly)

yeah, you're fairly right there. I really didnt think that you equated them, I was just making a point in order to prevent DrD and Edgar from having the opportunity to argue straw men. Thanks for your clarification, its a beautiful statement of compatibilism :)

Oh yeah, as Mike said, I am ANTI-OV. That does not mean I am anti you. However, because you are OV you will always percieve my comments as being against you personally. Sorry but thats your problem. I am not going stop showing how wrong OV is for that reason. If you cant learn to differentiate between them yourselves, then you really should keep out of theological debate.

drdeutsch
June 13th, 2002, 04:51 PM
Geoff,


what have I really done to upset you?
I never said you did.


that seems to have upset you.
Lemme see, Geoff.
Rule #1: It is false and irrational to lump people into general groups. (e.g. upset, happy, etc.)
Rule #2: Don't call me upset unless you can prove that I am.


because you are OV you will always percieve my comments as being against you personally.
I never took your comments personally. Please don't "read into it meaning that isn't there."

I'm not anti-you, either, Geoff. I just came here to learn. Yes, I am OV. I've done some research and it fits a lot better than other views. I was raised Catholic. I was also Calvinist for awhile. Then I was introduced to OV and it fits the best, in my opinion. I do find it hard to argue with you because you, in my opinion, dance around the subject and play games and accuse people of falsely accusing you. It may be so, but it makes it difficult to have a civilized discussion.

Anyway, there are many threads here and lots of information to consider and digest.
Take it easy,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 13th, 2002, 05:19 PM
lol...

thats hilarious really...

well go and have fun elsewhere

Edgar Caiña
June 13th, 2002, 07:11 PM
I've read the email debate between John Sanders (OV) and Chris Hall (non-OV) and they provided an example of how a Christian dialogue should be handled between non-OV'er and OV'er. That debate was excellently handled by them.

I guess the problem here was the way things were handled. I admit that I for one made a mistake. I think that we can't have a fruitful discussion when we let our temperament comes out in the discussions which sometimes could easily be felt by others even by using a single word.

I also believe that no single person here could ever claim that he has all the answers to everything, and because of that let's allow the principle of "free market of ideas" here. :cool:

Edgar Caiña
June 13th, 2002, 07:29 PM
Hi Surly,

You said
whether those things will be caused by Him directly or freely performed by creatures,I just want to ask if free act is included in the decree of God, because if it is, how could it be said a free performance? Could you please enlightened me on this?

Blessings,
Edgar

Edgar Caiña
June 14th, 2002, 08:46 AM
Hey guys, here's something to cool down the atmosphere here a bit:

The day came when an OVer stands before the LORD in judgment.

LORD: I pronounce you guilty and you'll be punished for believing that I change My mind! :mad:

OVer: But LORD, I just believed what is in the Book. I just believed those many passages of scripture that says you change your mind. :(

LORD: Oh, you believed them! But I didn't mean it that way! ;)

OVer: (aghast) You didn't mean it that way?!! You mean it's nottrue?!! And what did you mean by those? :mad:

LORD: I meant the OPPOSITE! ;)

OVer: You mean, You don't change Your mind? You mean, what you were saying was the opposite? :noid:

LORD: Yeah, exactly, the opposite! :p

OVer: Oh, LORD, I love you even more and I praise you indeed! :kiss:

LORD: But why praise Me? :confused: I'm going to send you to hell for believing such!! (obviously, an exaggeration)

OVer: Because NOW, I KNOW what you mean is the OPPOSITE!! :D

geralduk
June 14th, 2002, 09:54 AM
AS A MAN SOWS,THAT WILL HE REAP.

The seed will produce after its own kind.

Those who sow to the flesh will reap its corruption and death.

Those who sow to the Spirit will reap peace and life.

Now there is a subtle condemantion of God when some sugest that its wrong for God to predestine some to destruction.

As If man has without God has ANY OTHER end but death!

For the wages of sin is death!

Therefore the 'arguemnt' is NOT about wether this or that one is destined for life or judgement.

But a self justifacation and a denial of the rightous judgemnt of God!

There is NO hope in this world OTHER than the Hope that God has given which is the sure and certain hope that si in Christ.
For the promises of God are year and amen in CHIST Jesus.

Therefore.

If any do not CHOOSE freely that hope offered and freely done so by God then the END which is the result of sin is a PREDETERMINED end.

But "WHOSOEVER" BELIEVES will also enter into that PREDETERMINED end which is to ALL that are WILLING to come to a knowledge of the truth and freely give of themsleves to God which is thier RIGHTFULL service.
To THEM is liFE AND LIFE MORE ABUNDANTLY.

No man can condemn God for setting out the way of rightousness.
Nor for giving men the way of life and the way of death before Him.
But if you want to know what GOD 'S WILL is.He says CHOOSE LIFE!
So to choose other than life you any or all have to go CONTRARY to the WILL of God!

geoff
June 14th, 2002, 03:49 PM
Edgar,

I have never said that believing the open view condemns a man to hell.

However, I very much doubt that the god the open view has created is really the God who created the universe, so I guess thought would have a huge bearing on it... if you think that means a person (like a JW, Mormon, Muslim etc) isnt saved, thats up to you...

Personally I think OV is a cult.

Can someone translate for me, I think Gerry's speaking in tongues again :(

Edgar Caiña
June 14th, 2002, 07:00 PM
Hi geoff,

Im very sure you didn't say that. That's only a joke, man! That's why I said in parenthesis "obviously, an exaggeration." Of course, I don't believe anyone believing OV will go to hell, because our salvation is by the grace of God through our genuine faith in Him.

Well, if you find OV as a cult it's up to you also, but so far, I've never encountered one from OV camp as conceited as other people in their beliefs. So far, I feel very at home with any OV I met. Hope you'll find that experience also.

Be assured that though we differ so greatly here (OV), I'm still reading your other posts and learning from them as well...

Have a nice day, geoff and God bless.

1013
June 14th, 2002, 09:06 PM
It gave me a chuckle Edgar


from gerald
But "WHOSOEVER" BELIEVES will also enter into that PREDETERMINED end which is to ALL that are WILLING to come to a knowledge of the truth and freely give of themsleves to God which is thier RIGHTFULL service.
To THEM is liFE AND LIFE MORE ABUNDANTLY.

Amen.

geoff
June 14th, 2002, 11:47 PM
edgar,

so, what your saying is I am conceited, because I am not an open viewer?

Or in fact, that non Open Viewers are generally conceited, and Open Viewers generally not?

hahahahahahah

btw, I dont 'think' OV is a cult, I KNOW it is a cult.
Its a cult in the same sense that Mormonism is, or the Jewhovahs witness'. Not in the sense that Israel's religion is called a 'cult'.

Edgar Caiña
June 15th, 2002, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by geoff
edgar,

so, what your saying is I am conceited, because I am not an open viewer?

Or in fact, that non Open Viewers are generally conceited, and Open Viewers generally not?

hahahahahahahWell, that's not what I'm saying. I have other people in mind.

btw, I dont 'think' OV is a cult, I KNOW it is a cult.
Its a cult in the same sense that Mormonism is, or the Jewhovahs witness'. Not in the sense that Israel's religion is called a 'cult'.Well, you can brand us anyway you want to. You can brand us cult or whatever. But Geoff, I learned one very important thing during my 20 years as a follower of Jesus Christ, and that is to love others inspite of what they believe in. And as an OVer, I'm here to accept you as my brother in Christ since He also died for you, and if you really have trusted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, man, Im excited to see you someday in heaven if we won't have any oppurtunity to meet here on earth. In heaven, if you can put on something with your avatar on it, that would be great, I can easily identify you. Love you, brother!
:kiss:

geoff
June 15th, 2002, 03:49 AM
Edgar, would you say the same to a JW who comes to your door... welcome him in as a Brother in Christ?

Edgar Caiña
June 15th, 2002, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by geoff
Edgar, would you say the same to a JW who comes to your door... welcome him in as a Brother in Christ? Well, let me see... I'll play safe. If the person confesses Jesus as his Lord, God and Savior and that he/she believes that only Jesus can save him/her by the grace of God and that by his/her life he/she shows the fruit of repentance from sin, then whatever "cult" he/she may belong to, to me it doesn't matter. I will love him in the Lord, for there are saved people in other religious groups who are just waiting to be triggered to leave their "cult" group.

Geoff, are you saying you treat me like a JW? Are you saying that because I am OV that nullifies my true faith in Christ as far as you are concerned? Man, if that's what you're saying, better visit the place I live and ask every single child, boy, girl, man, and woman in our community about who Edgar is to them (im not bragging about myself, but they may serve as a better witness to my Christinaity than my being OV)... or even the dogs and the cats in our house. On the other hand, I dont treat you as an unbeliever, for in your other posts, you seemed to be one good believer of Him... that's the reason why I accept you as my brother in Christ... you're being non-OV (or much better, anti-OV) doesn't matter to me.

1013
June 15th, 2002, 11:04 AM
Interesting cult that meets in Lutheran, various evangelical, catholic, and reformed churches and feels doctrinally at home in those groups and shares in their communities.

Jaltus
June 15th, 2002, 11:41 AM
I do not think that OV is a cult, I think it is just a heterodox belief that will be quickly defeated, and those that still hold to it will leave the more evangelical churches.

However, I think time needs to be taken to explore the issues.

1013
June 15th, 2002, 12:04 PM
The evangelical church will probably become the ov's best stronghold with it's emphasis on the personhood God. Also the ov makes sense coming from scriptures. For better or for worse (and indeed for both better and worse) the evangelical church is truly a church of laymen and given that and the scriptural obviousness (even if you argue that that obviousness is superficial) there will always be evangelical ov'ers. All we have to do is get the information out and many such as myself with strong evangelical tendencies will latch on to it inas much as they latch on arminianism.

1013
June 15th, 2002, 12:08 PM
second post, scroll up

think of the hostility and distain that that theistic evolutionists and young earth creationists in the evangelical church have for each other. Each one thinks that the other is so obviously wrong and neither position is going anywhere soon. This deal with the open view is no different (except major proponents of the open view are not interested in hostility).

Jaltus
June 15th, 2002, 02:48 PM
The problem is that the OV has very few upper eschelon proponents in ETS and other major evangelical organizations, and two of the three biggest voices in the "evangelical wolrd," namely Piper and Stott, are firmly against the OV.

I think much of what happens the next 5 years at ETS will decide the issue.

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 03:19 AM
well said Jaltus.

Edgar,

I wasnt saying how I treated anyone, I was asking you a question.

1013,

The evangelical church will reject OV, because a, it isnt biblical, b, it isnt logical, and c, it isnt evangelical.

Edgar Caiña
June 16th, 2002, 09:50 AM
geoff,

I did answer your question. I was just thinking that you might be treating me that way. But if I was wrong, again, my apology. So you dont treat me like a JW, or do you?

With the love of the Lord,
Edgar

Edgar Caiña
June 16th, 2002, 10:45 AM
Hi Jaltus,

You said,
I think much of what happens the next 5 years at ETS will decide the issue.

Maybe Im wrong with this: do you mean it will take 5 years for ETS (what is ETS by the way?) to remove from the Scriptures the 25 "mind-changing passages" concerning God? Man, that's too long a time for 25 passages!

1013
June 16th, 2002, 11:55 AM
As long as the evangelical community doesn't find out what bitter old cranks some of these guys are, such as RC Spoul Jr. who prayed that God would destroy the open theists, perhaps you are right.

And how about the divisive Calvinists who don't even consider the Arminians to be Christians such as Michael Horton. Could you imagine if Greg Boyd said that Calvinists weren’t Christians?

If we’re interested in purging the ets of dangerous and disturbing trends (evangelicals just love dangerous and disturbing trends), aren’t we going after the wrong people?

A lot of theologians don't care for these gung ho militant Calvinists and many of them such as my Hebrew prof who is not an ov'er think that this point of view is worthy of scholarly endeavor and tolerance in the ETS. They made a significant stand in at the ets when they put it to a vote.


"We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents," the statement read. The resolution passed 253 to 66, with 41 members abstaining.

consider that a wopping 26 percent of evangelical theologians voted against the notion that the bible clearly teaches edf. 42 percent refused to vote for the statement. Its not a majority. What it is is significant. And it was a failure for what was attempted. The Calvinists were hoping for a 90 percent vote in favor of the statement and had they gotten it, they would’ve asked the leading proponents of the Open view to leave.

If the ets kicked out every minority view, it would get smaller and smaller because the evangelical church is very diverse and full of minorities.

Probably most of those who voted against the statement weren’t even open theists, but you can be sure that they are not interested in the political shiftings, divisiveness and virtual mccarthyism of many of the anti ov’ers.

Edgar, the ETS is the Evangelical Theological Society.

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 05:38 PM
Edgar,

There is no need to remove any 25 passages, because there is no 25 passages which actually show God changing. There are passages revealing God is a person with emotions, God doing what He said He would do, God interacting with His creation... but not one that proves God 'doesnt know' something and has to change.

We can go back and forth back and forth... however, the typical OV stance is to reject non OV understandings on the basis that it is 'based in Greek Philosophy', Calvinistic, presuppositional, Augustinian, Lutheran, etc etc.
Because you/they have rejected the evidence BEFORE the discussion starts, there is no argument. It doesnt matter how true, or irrefutable the evidence is before you, it has already been rejected.
IN 1013's case, he reserves the right to reject ANY evidence on the basis that 'he doesnt think we are thinking correctly'.

So whats the point Edgar? You'll probably say 'no that isnt me' - however you have already done it... Same with DrD.

KcOrTaM
June 16th, 2002, 06:36 PM
1013, could you point me to the source of your info re Sproul's prayer? and what do you think calling him a "bitter old crank" will serve to do in the situation?

and the source of the Horton comment...

I just like to check this kinda stuff out myself, if possible......

Edgar Caiña
June 16th, 2002, 07:12 PM
What's going on in the evangelical community is too bad. It's really odd that other Christians are labelled unbeliever or heretical just because they believe what the Scriptures says. It just came into my mind that in a particular book, RC Sproul was quoted saying that Clark Pinnock is NO LONGER a Christian. How could a Calvinist say that? NO LONGER a Christian?

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 07:23 PM
The book was probably written by an OV'er and it probably didnt say it... of course, we'll never know.

As I said before, you wouldnt call a muslim a Christian, because you dont believe they worship the same God, nor a JW, or a Mormon, because they dont have the same Jesus you do. So Its quite a valid claim.

1013
June 16th, 2002, 07:40 PM
Sproul concluded his essay in a book that he contributed to, Bound Only Once : The Failure of Open Theism (I think thats the book, unless there's another collection of essays against the open view with Sproul Jr. as a contributer, which I doubt) with something like "may God destroy these idolotrous thoughts and those who think them".

As for Horton, I think I've read that of him in an essay, it might've been the one that John Sanders presented to the most recent ETS convention, but I'm not sure, so feel free to suspend judgement of him on that account.


and what do you think calling him a "bitter old crank" will serve to do in the situation?

what does it serve to call someone a bitter old crank who calls upon God to destroy his Christian brothers? It serves the purpose of accuracy I think. :D

Edgar Caiña
June 16th, 2002, 07:44 PM
You didn't get my point, geoff. What I was saying was, if RC did say that (but as you've said, we never know), RC was just being INCONSISTENT with his doctrinal make up. Why? For him to say Pinnock is no longer a Christian is to say Pinnock LOST his salvation which Calvinists don't believe as possible.

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 07:47 PM
Thats the other reason I still post here... cuz 1013 really cracks me up..

w00t!

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 07:52 PM
edgar,

No, he could be saying that Pinnock WAS NEVER a christian, which is completely consistant with Calvinist theology.

Jaltus
June 16th, 2002, 08:36 PM
ETS is the Evangelical Theological Society, of which I am a member, as are Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders.

What I am saying is that theological discussions take about 7-10 years to go all the way through their cycle, which means about another 5 years for this issue. In the end, either the above mentioned will be expelled from the ETS (for not holding to inerrancy), will come back into the fold, or else OV will be considered within the fold of evangelical beliefs (the last one I truly doubt will happen).

I find it funny that Calvinists are so quick to call everyone else a heretic. They really need to read the NT some more and see how heresy is defined, or else read Craig Blomberg's essay on Heresy in the NT.

Jaltus
June 16th, 2002, 08:37 PM
RC Jr is just riding his father's coattails. Ignore him, since he ignores the Bible. (not a knock on Calvinists, just on Jr.)

geoff
June 16th, 2002, 08:39 PM
gotta watch those calvinists... they are a sneaky bunch ;)

Edgar Caiña
June 16th, 2002, 08:57 PM
Jaltus,

What if Boyd, et al. (say) are finally expelled from ETS, would that mean they are no longer Christians in the eyes of ETS?

1013
June 16th, 2002, 10:02 PM
cuz 1013 really cracks me up

well... I'm always happy to entertain.

drdeutsch
June 17th, 2002, 08:54 AM
Geoff,

If I come to the Bible with the understanding that many of the traditional views of Scripture are rooted in the Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. the doctrine of Immutability) it is because it is true. This can be traced back to Plato, Plotinus, and others. These men were pagans. Not Christians. I'm not saying that they weren't learned men or Erudites. They were very competent. However, I'm not going to take an understanding of Scripture from someone who doesn't believe in God.
As far as Augustine goes, he was a very great scholar. He didn't believe God changed at all. He was a philosopher first and foremost, Christian second. Augustine changed, however, after Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, allegorized the OT and showed Augustine that God can indeed and does change.
After listening to Ambrose, Augustine wrote:

“For those absurdities [my note: repent verses] which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit.”
But, let's throw away our presuppositions. Many (Piper, Hall, Calvinists, non-OV's) say that God doesn't change. Many others (Boyd, Sanders, OV's) say that God does change. Why should I believe any one of them over the Bible? They are just men, and men are fallible. So I look at the bible. I look at the 26 instances which say that God repented [nacham]. Enough said.

As I said before, Geoff, I was a Calvinist at one time. I subscribed to all of the traditional views of God. Speaking of traditional, I was raised Catholic. I had tradition stuffed down my throat every sunday morning. (this is not a knock against the Catholic church - just that I didn't really like going to mass because it put me to sleep. Does any kid really enjoy going to mass?) Anyway, I swallowed everything that theologians put out there - immutability, impassability, timelessness, etc... Then, I got a wake-up call. I started reading the other side. I kept an open mind, and I started comparing everything against Scripture, doing my own research, and praying that God would "open my mind to an understanding of the Scriptures." Bless Him, He has.

Please don't make any more presuppositional comments about me, Geoff. By the way, where do you preach?

God bless, all.
Dr. Deutsch

Surly-DwarF
June 17th, 2002, 10:34 AM
Wow,

I wish I had more time to keep up with this threa. There's a lot I want to comment on, but must limit myself presently.


1013Sproul concluded his essay in a book that he contributed to, Bound Only Once : The Failure of Open Theism (I think thats the book, unless there's another collection of essays against the open view with Sproul Jr. as a contributer, which I doubt) with something like "may God destroy these idolotrous thoughts and those who think them".

1013,

"With something LIKE," eh? Well, with that kind of charge, it better be something VERY like. Personally, I'd like the exact quote, as I don't believe he said it until I have concrete proof.


JaltusRC Jr is just riding his father's coattails. Ignore him, since he ignores the Bible. (not a knock on Calvinists, just on Jr.)

Yeah, I'd like to add something here too. I'm not a knee-jerk defender of any and all Calvinists and whatever they might say. But, to my knowledge, that is a very unfair and untrue thing for you to say about the Sprouls, Jaltus, particularly Sr., who I have learned an incredible amount from, and who seems to me to be one of the most gracious, easy-going and irenic guys I can imagine, especially for a theologian. Jr. may be a bit more aggressive and fiery, but some of his messages, particularly on child-rearing are among the best I've heard as well, so until I have something more than 1013's hearsay to indict them, I'll continue to defend their character, insofar as I'm privy to a knowledge of it. If I'm proven wrong, I'll own up to it.


I find it funny that Calvinists are so quick to call everyone else a heretic.

I don't think we/they are so quick to do that. But hey, if the shoe fits....

Mike

Jaltus
June 17th, 2002, 12:32 PM
Actually, Sproul Jr. said that all true believers should "call down fire" on those who believe such things (his words).

Surly,

I did not knock Sr at all, only Jr. Most in the know know that Jr. is not a biblicist in any sense of the word. His father is a wellknown and thoroughly versed man. His son is but a pale shade, riding his father's coattails. There is no knock on Sproul with that (my parents, by the way, do know Sproul, so I try to refrain from commenting on him, as I am biased by my parent's views).

Dr Deutsch,

So you take as normative 25 or 26 descriptive passages and deny all passages which affirm as God unchanging with respect to His nature, purpose, plans, and will? What kind of hermeneutic do you have in order to do so? (honest questions, not lambasting)

As per the argument from "Greek philosophy," you do know what all Boyd, Sanders, et al are espousing is just Aristotelian philosophy? You are just changing one system for another (as per your understanding).

For me, it boils down to this:

Can the OV God truly fulfill Romans 8:28? The answer, as is seen in Boyd's book, is no:

It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn’t plan or foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have the power to affect us, just as we have the power to affect others. This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought. God of the Possible, pp. 155-156. Humorously, or sadly, Boyd is reversing himself from only a few pages earlier, pg. 153, where he says the exact opposite:

[Openness] affirms that whatever happens, God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event (Rom. 8:28).Obviously, such a position is not truly tenable.

In other words, I like my Bible whole and read according to the genre it is written in. therefore, doctrinal essays (i.e. Romans) are read as PRESCRIPTIVE, telling the reader what is true and what should be done about it. Narrative texts are DESCRIPTIVE (i.e. accounts of what historically happened), telling us what happened. In the case of telling us what God did, what human language can adequately grasp what God thinks or what God feels?

These are some of the issues that need to be considered in this debate.

Jaltus
June 17th, 2002, 12:34 PM
Edgar,

Yes. You can only be expelled for not holding to inerrancy or for not holding to Trinitarianism, therefore a wide range of beliefs can be held, so those thrust out are considered not saved, or at least heretical with a need to come back to the fold.

Surly-DwarF
June 17th, 2002, 02:07 PM
Jaltus,

Ok, I guess I misunderstood you about R.C. Sr., sorry. I’m a little surprised that Jr. would have said that, and I’d still like to see the quote in full context, but if he did I don’t endorse it, and would hope he’d take it back if given the chance. As to the rest of your comments, you’ve made a number of good points.

Mike

drdeutsch
June 17th, 2002, 02:44 PM
Jaltus,

There are 26 instances in which the Hebrew word nacham is used of God. There are also many instances which say that God does not repent [nacham] or change. I have examined them all. They are mostly specific cases. Malachi 3:6 for example. "I am the Lord. I do not change. Therefore, O sons of Jacob, you are not consumed." The Hebrew in Mal 3:6 is not nacham, it is lo shanah and, in this instance, God is saying that He will not go back on His word - He will not renege - on His covenant with David. This verse does not speak about the immutability of God's character, it is saying that God is trustworthy. He made a covenant with David and He's not going to go back on that by destroying Israel. Another one is when God made Saul king. First, He repents for having made Saul king, then He takes the kingdom away from Saul. When Saul prays to Him, He says "I will not change." God means that He will not change His mind. He is firm in His decision to not give the kingdom back to Saul.
I'm pretty sure that I've examined all of these verses. If you have any more, feel free to email me any more of your questions: drdeutsch@hotmail.com

I am by no means a great theologian. I am very much still a beginner and don't know the answer to many questions. I don't believe that my theology is perfect or infallible in any way. In fact, I read a lot of non-OV and Calvinist articles to try to find faults in my theology. Obviously, many of the views shared on these forums help with that also.

As far as Boyd is concerned, I do not subscribe to everything that Boyd subscribes to. I have read God At War and found it to be a very informative. It made me think a lot. If there are faults in his theology, perhaps you should point that out to him. Like I said, I read all views in order to "brainstorm," so to speak. If something fits, I examine it against the Bible and see how it works out. I'm fairly sure that my theology - like all men's theologies - is riddled with flaws. Only God is perfect.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

drdeutsch
June 17th, 2002, 02:50 PM
Jaltus,

Also, as far Aristotleian philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy are concerned, I wasn't aware that I was interchanging the two. Augustine drew from many Greek philosophers. Here is an article by Bob Hill from his book Calvinism Unmasked that explains it pretty well:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/CalvinismUnmasked_ch2.htm

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 17th, 2002, 04:22 PM
Jaltus,

You are af course correct. OV'ers have done exactly what they accuse everyone else of. They seem to forget that Paul was one of the greatest philosophers around... doesnt stop them from forming their church around his teaching though...

DrD,

unfortunately Bob Hill is no expert on philosophy. He doesnt even realise what He has done.

BTW, a time bound god, who can not know the future, who must change and react is no better than the baals and the marduks of the ancient near eastern religions. OV makes the God of Scripture, the equal of the gods of the pantheists of ancient times... talk about a philosophical muddle.

1013
June 17th, 2002, 05:29 PM
Jaltus, I'm afraid I still don't see the problem with Romans 8:28. Even Boyd's take on it.

I don't think that everything that happens to us has a divine purpose. But God can work with those things that didn't have that divine purpose into his plans.

Furthermore, how do you take this position without subscribing to specific soverignty?

All does not mean absolutely all significant and insignificant. If some electron on the opposite side of mars swerves one way, does that have to be part of God's plan? Does it have to be part of God's plan that I brushed my teeth this morning with 48 strokes and not 45?

Suppose I have a crippling accident that wasn't determined by God. Why did God have to know about that beforehand to use it. Can't he use that even if it was due to some free and uncontrolled decision of a driver to drive drunk which God did intend to be on the road and gave him the real possibility to stay off the road?

BTW, I do believe that in the Four views book the answer given to the calvinist was something to the effect that there was a better translation of the verse that did not lend itself as much to the cause of specific soverignty and was more compatible with more indeterministic views. I'm not sure if it was Pinnock who pointed this out or not.

drdeutsch
June 17th, 2002, 05:30 PM
Paul may have been a philosopher, but I believe he was divinely inspired. The Hellenistic philosophers, on the other hand, were not divinely inspired. At least I don't believe so. However, since the bible is "God-breathed," Paul was therefore divinely inspired and can be considered a reliable source to learn from.

Bob Hill doesn't have to be a philosopher in order to write a brief history of traditional doctrines. I'm not a carpenter, but I could probably do some miscellaneous handywork. I'm also not a philosopher, but that doesn't stop me from reading history and learning about historical past events, historical truths. By the way, I'm not historian, either. I study mainly languages and linguistics.

Would it make you feel better if I found a brief history of Hellenistic philosophy compiled by someone else?

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

1013
June 17th, 2002, 05:34 PM
Paul wasn't a Philosopher. He doesn't deal with the issues that Philosophers deal with. The Bible makes lots of metaphysical claims, and some epistemic claims that has implications for philosophy and very interesting ones at that, but it is not a book of philosophy.

BTW drdeutch,

we've had an interesting thread on nachum and Moses' perspective on God's changing. I might bump it for you

geoff
June 17th, 2002, 05:48 PM
Honestly man... thats just dumb,... EVERYONE is a philosopher... you cant think about life without philosophising...

I have just read a series of articles by a gent doing his phd thesis on Pauls integration of Hellenistic philosophy...

I suggest you read up on it. THere is NO WAY in hades that an amateur philospher could do what Paul did, or have the grasp of things philosophical that Paul did. Its quite obvious that Paul was taught by, and came in contact with many great philosophers of the Hellenistic age (and their students). And there is no way that what they taught would not have been integrated into his thought, any less than his hebrew-ness would have been able to have been set aside.

come on gents, start using your heads please.

1013
June 17th, 2002, 05:55 PM
Paul wasn't a philosopher. :)

geoff
June 17th, 2002, 06:18 PM
I said, START USING YOUR HEAD.

honestly...
this is very very sad

Surly-DwarF
June 17th, 2002, 07:12 PM
Geoff,

Uhh, your avatar is kinda creepin' me out :eek:


1013 II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

I don't think your view flys with this second article on God's eternal decree in the westminster confession, which is alright if you don't adhere to it. But it is a calvinist standard

Rob,

I agree with the West Conf. What I said about foreknowledge/predest. earlier wasn’t necessarily intended to be a full statement of what I believe, but an explanation of how the two things aren’t exactly the same. Though I’d note that the WC also, in addition to that bit you just quoted, states that God does this in such a way that no violence is done to the will of the creature, etc. Gerstner says that in some profoundly mysterious way, God sovereignly predestines things in the same way the WC states, but in accordance with our free choices. Of course, I’m talking about “free choices” in the natural sense of decisions based on preference (what to eat, where to live, what movie to see), not the “moral liberty” of the unregenerate to choose God or do spiritual good, which I presume is part of your Lib. FW paradigm.

geoff
June 17th, 2002, 08:02 PM
Mike,

We are the CalvinistBorg - we will not assimilate your theology, we will defeat it with sound reasoning, logic, and exegesis!

ADDEnDUM: I am not a calvinist... it was a JOKE!

Edgar Caiña
June 18th, 2002, 07:06 AM
Jaltus,

What if Boyd, et al. (say) are finally expelled from ETS, would that mean they are no longer Christians in the eyes of ETS?
Originally posted by Jaltus
Edgar,

Yes. You can only be expelled for not holding to inerrancy or for not holding to Trinitarianism, therefore a wide range of beliefs can be held, so those thrust out are considered not saved, or at least heretical with a need to come back to the fold. Am I reading you right? YES? That would mean they are NO LONGER Christians in the eyes of ETS? I thought you (and the majority in ETS) are a Calvinist?

Edgar Caiña
June 18th, 2002, 08:01 AM
[quote]Actually, Sproul Jr. said that all true believers should "call down fire" on those who believe such things (his words).[/b]Well, if that fire was predetermined to come down upon those who believe such things, RC has nothing to worry about, it would come down upon us. But that invitation for true believers to "call down fire" makes me to question again his belief of fixity of all things. Does he truly believe that's possible, I mean for true believers to influence God in prayer to send fire upon the "heretics"? Anyway, It's just a sort of musing things... Im sure RC was not serious with those words...

Jaltus
June 18th, 2002, 12:51 PM
I am Arminian. The majority of those in the ETS are Calvinists. Of course, the Calvinists would argue that they were never saved to begin with (an argument which begs the question), but that is beside the point.

The words are in print (though I cannot remember where) and it was quoted at the last ETS conference in CO. Even those in the anti-OV camp knew that Jr. meant it.

Again, Jr. is not Sr., but he weilds too much influence to be saying those kind of things ANYWHERE and still be considered a man of God. You'd think he never read Luke 9:51-62.

Jaltus
June 18th, 2002, 01:07 PM
Dr. D,

Let me just say that I am firmly convinced that nacham does not mean what you think it does, or rather is not limited to the range of meaning you think it is. While I am no Hebrew scholar, I have a friend who is fluent in both biblical and modern Hebrew, who will pursue his Ph D in linguistics from Ohio St (in Hebrew) when he is done working at a church plant.

Go see the thread on nacham that should be in this forum somewhere. It is quite lengthy, but the arguments are wonderful.

My point about philosophy is that allegedly historical Christianity (specifically classical theism) has fallen prey to Platonism. However, the OV response has been to throw out Platonism and unknowingly replace it with Aristotileanism, virtually replacing one Greek philosophy for another (those Greeks were quite bright, and all of Western civilization is based on their philosophy anyway). Thus, the critique loses much power when it is understood to only be self-serving, and not a true "starting over from scratch" as it claims.

If you want a REAL critique of classical theism done well (and briefly), I highly recommend Ronald Nash's The Concept of God. If you want a good philosophical critique of classical theism from an OVer, read The Openness of God, chapter 2, which I believe is by one of the Basingers.

1013,

How can you not see that those two quotes from Boyd contradict each other point by point?

drdeutsch
June 18th, 2002, 02:35 PM
Jaltus,

I read the thread on "God repenting and nacham." True, my interpretation is a bit more confined, a bit narrower, but I read the entire thread and a broader meaning doesn't change my theology at all. These passages are still showing me that God changed His mind. The word nacham is used for both men and God. The only difference is what makes men "nacham" and what makes God "nacham." Both men and God, however, are repenting, changing their minds, consoling themselves, grieving themselves, however you want to translate it.
Also, in reading through the entire thread, I didn't find very much of an argument put up by the non-OV'ers. 1013 addressed that, but never got much of a response. I'll read through it again, though. I'm no Hebrew expert either, and it's pretty heavy stuff.

I'll also check out that book you mentioned. Thanks.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Jaltus
June 18th, 2002, 03:13 PM
Again, I am no expert on Hebrew. As soon as I take my one OT course and (God willing) pass the Hebrew placement exam, I am done with it.

Greek is my thing.

geoff
June 18th, 2002, 04:55 PM
The OV perspective (and especially 1013's) amounts to a denial of the evidence, not a refutation of it.

If you find that convincing... well.. what more can be said?

1013
June 18th, 2002, 06:29 PM
Jaltus, I can see only see one thing in the first quote of yours that can be taken it a way that would contradict the second.


In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes

reflection taken as looking upon the past from the present.

But I don't think that they necessarily contradict. So something happens that has no apparent divine purpose. So we may reflect that it has no divine purpose. God can still work with the circumstances that have resulted from this event and bring a good end out of it. That it had no intended divine purpose to begin with and that no divine efforts using this event visable at the current time does not mean that God still can't bring something good out of it.

Consider Fredrick Suppe's essay in Philosopher's Who Believe.

He said that he learned to view the emotional abuses from his father were a gift from God. Now I'll imeadiately disagree with this interpretation of his experience but I can say that something of it is true. God used this abuse to bring Suppe closer to him. And so effective this was, Suppe easily concluded that God purposed it that way to begin with. But that is unnecesary. It is good enough to show that God used those scars and that pain for good and so it is that even if God didn't purpose that abuse, he utilized it in the life of one who submitted to his care and healing. What wasn't in his plans (and for the sake of argument, not in his knowledge, though I'd be willing to admit that early on, God foreknew of the abuse that Suppe would recieve) is now an essential part. It didn't have to play that role because suppe didn't have to yeild to God and/or his father could've gotten the spiritual healing that he needed. But neither was the case so God utilize that abuse the way that he did.

geralduk
June 19th, 2002, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by drdeutsch
Jaltus,

Also, as far Aristotleian philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy are concerned, I wasn't aware that I was interchanging the two. Augustine drew from many Greek philosophers. Here is an article by Bob Hill from his book Calvinism Unmasked that explains it pretty well:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/CalvinismUnmasked_ch2.htm

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Why is any man drinking from the polulted waters of mens philosophies and not from the pure Waters of Gods Word?

geralduk
June 19th, 2002, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by drdeutsch
Geoff,

If I come to the Bible with the understanding that many of the traditional views of Scripture are rooted in the Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. the doctrine of Immutability) it is because it is true. This can be traced back to Plato, Plotinus, and others. These men were pagans. Not Christians. I'm not saying that they weren't learned men or Erudites. They were very competent. However, I'm not going to take an understanding of Scripture from someone who doesn't believe in God.
As far as Augustine goes, he was a very great scholar. He didn't believe God changed at all. He was a philosopher first and foremost, Christian second. Augustine changed, however, after Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, allegorized the OT and showed Augustine that God can indeed and does change.
After listening to Ambrose, Augustine wrote:

But, let's throw away our presuppositions. Many (Piper, Hall, Calvinists, non-OV's) say that God doesn't change. Many others (Boyd, Sanders, OV's) say that God does change. Why should I believe any one of them over the Bible? They are just men, and men are fallible. So I look at the bible. I look at the 26 instances which say that God repented [nacham]. Enough said.

As I said before, Geoff, I was a Calvinist at one time. I subscribed to all of the traditional views of God. Speaking of traditional, I was raised Catholic. I had tradition stuffed down my throat every sunday morning. (this is not a knock against the Catholic church - just that I didn't really like going to mass because it put me to sleep. Does any kid really enjoy going to mass?) Anyway, I swallowed everything that theologians put out there - immutability, impassability, timelessness, etc... Then, I got a wake-up call. I started reading the other side. I kept an open mind, and I started comparing everything against Scripture, doing my own research, and praying that God would "open my mind to an understanding of the Scriptures." Bless Him, He has.

Please don't make any more presuppositional comments about me, Geoff. By the way, where do you preach?

God bless, all.
Dr. Deutsch


The NATURE AND CHARACTER of God has NEVER changed.
Nor has His ETERNAL WILL and purpose and plan FOR MAN.

IT IS TO THE "whosover"will believe who ENTERS INTO it.
Those to whom it is promised but do not beleive in the promises how can they recieve it.
So to MAN whom God had purposed to have an incorruptable eternal life.
But by not beleieving the Word of God did not live but died.
To those He showe dmercy to and a promise of a savior ("the seed of the woman") they also through unbelief did not recieve it.
But like th genearion prophesied in scripture is a rebelios one perished in the flood.
The children Of Isreal who were brought out ogf Egypt buy Gods strong handand were promised a land flowing with milk and honey.
nevertheless through their unbelief entered not in.
yet "to them that believe to THEM gave He the power to become the sons of God"
Does that mean that those who do not and perish makes God a lier?
OF course not!
Look again WHERE you see God repenting and what He repents of.
He does Not change.
It is men who change and God cannot give to them which He desired to and be CONSISTANT with His RIGHTOUS nature and character.
WHOSOEVER though calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
If you read at the beginning of THE book you will read that men were BARRED from the tree of LIFE.
But if you look at the END of THE book you will find he has REGAINED it.
You will read that God had said "of ALL the trees in the garden you may freely eat"This INCLUDED the tree of life.
The ONLY one they were NOT alowed to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Therfore it was and IS and shall be the eternal WILL of God that man should EAT of the tree of life.
Now the first Adam failed in a paradise.
The last suceded in a wilderness.
God in Christ redeems man and IN Christ he ENTERS INTO that eternal will and plan of God.

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 02:21 PM
Geralduk,

No matter what you do, God's word is going to get watered down by our own idiosyncrasies and philosophies. None of us can live, think, or be pure like God. Are not theologies philosophies? And our theologies are different. Each interpretation is different. I'm not saying each one is rooted in Hellenistic philosophy, it is merely my contention that none of us can have a "perfect" theology. At least not in the sense that only God's theology is perfect because God is perfect.

I also never made the claim that when God repents He was changing. I don't believe that God changes in His character. He always has been and always will be perfectly holy, loving, just, righteous, etc... These attributes of God never change. What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind. He is, in a sense, growing. Growth, however, does not imply imperfect. Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned through suffering. If Jesus was God and God was perfect, then Jesus was perfect, but He was still able to learn and grow and maintain his perfection. Had Jesus ever been a man before? Not as far as we know. Likewise, has God ever dealt with humans before? Did God ever work with or create humans before we know He did in Genesis? Of course not. I'm not saying that God doesn't know how to deal with humans. That would be dumb. I'm saying that God knows how we can act, but, as an open theist, He doesn't know how we will act until we do it. Thus, He does, in a sense, learn. By the way, I'm using "learn" because I really can't think of a more fitting term. I'm sure there is one out there, but my mind isn't working at the moment.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 19th, 2002, 04:26 PM
What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind.

the point IS DrD, that the text DOES NOT say this at all. In fact, in gen 6 for example, its quite clear that nacham is an emotional response... NOT AT ALL to do with learning or growing.. Each use of the word must be looked at closely, and in context.

As for philosphy and religion, here are the words of Edward Moore, dual Phd in philosophy:


The catechetical schools of the Hellenistic era used philosophy as a propaideutic to the study of the gospel and Christian theology in general. The reason being that too many grave errors resulted from a total immersion in the word of God without any grounding in logic, dialectic, cosmology, and ethics. Origen, for example, introduced his students to what was both admirable and despicable in pagan thought. He introduced them to false ideas and proved those ideas wrong through the technique of dialectic. Only when the students had been convinced of the error of certain ideas on the basis of human reasoning alone did Origen begin to teach them the gospel. This precluded any back-sliding caused by doubt or lack of personal conviction. I believe the proliferation of heterodox sects, fundamentalism, and intolerance in our own era would be checked or eliminated if all Christians were required to undergo a rigorous philosophical training. But that will never happen, alas! It is fortunate, though, that a few denominations find a place for philosophy in their teachings.

Interesting.

and again:


The New Testament was written, as Jaroslav Pelikan has remarked, "in the language of Socrates and Plato, or at least in a reasonably accurate facsimile thereof." Greek language and concepts pervade the New Testament. I could quote literally hundreds of passages (and by the way, I know that bible quite well, in addition to philosophy) that draw on Stoic and Platonic philosophical concepts. So I don't believe that Paul was all that adamant in his opposition to Gentile wisdom. Let him speak for himself:
"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:14-16 RSV).
From this passage we may deduce that certain pagans, like Socrates perhaps, will attain salvation. This passage also implies that those who are not Christian even in our own time may, through human reason alone, attain salvation. Of course, Christians have a sure hope in Christ, while non-Christians are left to their own devices. But the fact that even non-Christians may attain salvation speaks in favor of a God who is both loving and just.

Does that help you all?

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 05:07 PM
Geoff,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the philosophy quotes. Very interesting, to be sure, but it was never my intention to say that pagans cannot attain salvation. Indeed, I never said that. A lot of this is new to me. Like I said, I'm not theological expert. It was merely my understanding that many traditional beliefs, such as the doctrine of immutability, were deeply rooted in Hellenestic philosophy, namely, from pagan philosophers. Now, these pagans may unknowingly do the law and thus keep the law and attain salvation, just as you have shown, but that doesn't make them bible experts and certainly doesn't warrant that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour should turn to them in times of distress and seek answers from them.

As for Genesis 6:5-6,

"and the Lord God having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, then God laid it to heart that He had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them."

Yes, Geoff, God does show emotion here. He is grieved. You cannot deny the passibility of God in this passage. However, unless you can prove to me with Scripture that God foreknew and planned the flood and wiping out man - in essence, in changing His plan and dealing with man, starting over because man turned evil, which He did not expect - then I find that this passage is showing that God does indeed change His mind and dealings with man.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 19th, 2002, 05:19 PM
DrD,

Can you PROVE God DID NOT know?

In fact, the text reveals (in Hebrew) that the reason for God's grieving is because of all the evil committed, and all the evil that WOULD BE committed (knowing as we do that God DOES know the specific sins of the individual).

That would seem to indicate a fair depth of foreknowledge... enough to convince me that God DID foreknow...

Honestly, there is quite enough evidence in Scripture to have convinced the majority believers for several thousand years that God does in fact have perfect knowledge, which undeniably means perfect foreknowledge... How on EARTH do you think a few piddly OV'ers are going to change that? The only way is to retranslate, and commit the exegetical SIN of Eisogesis... and quite frankly, it wont wash. If it wasnt so sad, it would be laughable.

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 05:36 PM
Geoff,

I find nothing in the Hebrew to suggest that God knew what sins WOULD BE committed. True, it says that God knows that man's heart is only evil continually, but this does not imply that God has foreknowledge of specific sins. And He doesn't reveal that He knows that the heart of man is only evil continually until He decides to wipe out man from the face of the earth in Genesis 6.

"Perfect knowledge" does not mean "perfect foreknowledge." "Perfect knowledge" means "perfect knowledge." Knowledge and foreknowledge are two different concepts. I would expect anybody discussing theology to make the distinction.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 19th, 2002, 05:57 PM
DrD,

Obviously you didnt look closely at the word, stems, tenses, etc etc... if you have, you would see what I mean. If you have something like Logos Software, you can do it in about 2 seconds flat.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt foreknowledge a subset of 'knowledge' ?
The general subject of Knowledge includes knowledge of all kinds.
Human beings have imperfect knowledge, and imperfect foreknowledge, God has perfect knowledge, and therefore perfect foreknowledge.

btw, your sig looks very familiar... so do your comments...

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 06:23 PM
Geoff,

First off, I'm glad that we're actually able to discuss this like civilized human beings. In fact, I'm glad that you would even discuss this with a "cultist" like me.

Logos software. Yes. A little too expensive for me. I am but a poor student. However, I feel confident that many people have gone to heaven without having bought Logos software.

As for the signature, I saw it one day on the forum hosted by Gregory Boyd's site (www.gregoryboyd.org/gbfront.htm). I liked it, so I picked it up.

Can you demonstrate that God had perfect foreknowledge of the fall of man or of the flood? Obviously, God had perfect foreknowledge of the life and crucifixition of Jesus Christ, and He has perfect foreknowledge of end times (Declaring the end from the beginning...) because He has predestined it.
Can you offer me some verses to support the claim that God foreknows every action in the universe? For that is truly where OV makes the distinction: That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them. Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.

Yes, the traditional view has been that God has perfect foreknowledge. But that is tradition. It used to be the traditional view that the earth was flat. It used to be the traditional view that the sun revolved around the earth. But tradition has been wrong before. Men are fallible and wrong. I'm not saying that my theology is perfect, but that both of ours, no doubt, have their faults, and we should be willing to admit that because only God is perfect.
As long as we're on the subject of philosophy, how about Ralph Waldo Emerson? I can't remember exactly, and I can't seem to find my Emerson right now (it's cleaning time), but something like "Tradition builds the sepulchres of the fathers. [. . .] Why should we not also enjoy an original relation to the universe?"

I'll reference that for you later, when I finally find my book.

God bless you all, (especially Geoff)
Dr. Deutsch

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 07:23 PM
Geoff,

It's at the very beginning of "Nature" by Ralph Waldo Emerson.


Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations behld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should we not also enjoy an original relation to the universe?

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

geoff
June 19th, 2002, 07:57 PM
DrD,

In this case, tradition is built on what scripture says, not about what people learn about the universe using scientific method rah rah rah.


That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them.
Thats actually utter codswallop.
Its demonstratable that humans can know things will happen in the future, in fact in scripture (acts) we are told that there is a woman who made her owners a living by telling peoples futures.

If human beings can know the future, BY ANY MEANS, then so too can God. It is ILLOGICAL to think that because an action has not happened, it is unknowable. Even humans can do it.


Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.

then God's an idiot, because He didnt even get that right, he left Noah, and therefore sinful humanity on earth.

drdeutsch
June 19th, 2002, 08:50 PM
Geoff,

Psychologists can predict what humans might do in certain situations. Metereologists can predict what the the weather might do. Are they sometimes right? Yes. Are they always right? No. Obviously, God "knows the hearts of all men." He can predict what humans might do in any given situation, but the factor of our freewill enters into the equation. If humans can predict what other humans might do, then certainly God can do this on a much greater, more perfect level. This does not imply that He knows specifically every action.

It is not illogical to think that because an action has happened it is unknowable. It hasn't happened yet.

God's not an idiot in this situation. He wasn't controlling men's actions. He didn't make them become sinful (At least, not according to my view). They did it of their own volition, thus God is not an idiot. Yes, God knew that even Noah was a sinful human, but He wanted to start afresh with Noah. Perhaps not only to get rid of all the other sinful humans, but to rid the world of the Nephilim? I'm not sure. Did not God also say that He was going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses? Moses, too, was a sinful human, but God was going to do it, nonetheless.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

jobeth
June 19th, 2002, 09:53 PM
Dr. Deutsch,

You said "Yes, God knew that even Noah was a sinful human, but He wanted to start afresh with Noah. "

God said Noah was perfect. "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Which one of you is correct about Noah?

God also said that Job was perfect. Do you think God was wrong about Job too?
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

God also includes Daniel among these perfect men.
Ezek 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

geoff
June 19th, 2002, 11:00 PM
jobeth


Which one of you is correct about Noah?

Noah was just and righteous IN THE EYES OF GOD... that doesnt mean He was sinless... the only sinless one is Christ. I am NOT having this discussion with you again, I am sick of it. Go and ply your wares somewhere else please.

DrD:


If humans can predict what other humans might do, then certainly God can do this on a much greater, more perfect level.

I dont accept that. I can do MORe than predict, I can KNOW. One of the abominations in scripture is foretelling the future (divinery) - not guess work, but foretelling of certain events. I would suggest that this argument is based on something you have been told, or read, but it isnt actually valid at all. Very little background work readily proves it false.


It is not illogical to think that because an action has happened it is unknowable. It hasn't happened yet.

No, its illogical to think that because something hasnt happened yet, its unknowable. its also demonstratably false.


God's not an idiot in this situation.

He is an idiot according to you. Firstly He created, made a mess of it, didnt know what was going on, realised he stuffed up, decided to destroy humanity and start again, didnt actually remove all humanity, and ended up with the same problem all over again. IN the case of Moses, you have Him claiming something, then being corrected by a creation of His, because He obviously had forgotten his own nature. You cant really expect us to believe that load of tripe can you? Cant you see how ridiculous it is?

geralduk
June 20th, 2002, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by drdeutsch
Geralduk,

No matter what you do, God's word is going to get watered down by our own idiosyncrasies and philosophies. None of us can live, think, or be pure like God. Are not theologies philosophies? And our theologies are different. Each interpretation is different. I'm not saying each one is rooted in Hellenistic philosophy, it is merely my contention that none of us can have a "perfect" theology. At least not in the sense that only God's theology is perfect because God is perfect.

I also never made the claim that when God repents He was changing. I don't believe that God changes in His character. He always has been and always will be perfectly holy, loving, just, righteous, etc... These attributes of God never change. What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind. He is, in a sense, growing. Growth, however, does not imply imperfect. Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned through suffering. If Jesus was God and God was perfect, then Jesus was perfect, but He was still able to learn and grow and maintain his perfection. Had Jesus ever been a man before? Not as far as we know. Likewise, has God ever dealt with humans before? Did God ever work with or create humans before we know He did in Genesis? Of course not. I'm not saying that God doesn't know how to deal with humans. That would be dumb. I'm saying that God knows how we can act, but, as an open theist, He doesn't know how we will act until we do it. Thus, He does, in a sense, learn. By the way, I'm using "learn" because I really can't think of a more fitting term. I'm sure there is one out there, but my mind isn't working at the moment.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Where is God in all this?

Now while men have and do corrupt the Word of God and the world is filling up with all the versions that men can make of it.
Adding to and ommiting from and compleyely changing it.
Neverthe less.
I am of the solid conviction that God being God can and does KEEP His Word,both in action and in retention.
So that in this world today you can find a bible that is in English the most accurate transalation of the Word of God.
iTS THE kING jAMES AUTHORISED VERSION(ORIGINAL)

Then you say none of us can have a pure heart and or mind.Nor can we live as God intends us to live.
If that was true why then calvary?
If we are or cannot be any different from what we were BEFORE we were saved .Why then did Jesus die?
You say we cannot think purely?
Or "come to aknowledge of the truth"
If that was so ,why then does it say in the scriptures we are "to have the mind of Christ"?
If we can have no RIGHT thinking,or see things as God sees them.We CANNOT be saved!
For it is BECAUSE that through Gods grace and the quickening of the Holy Spirit that we SAW things as God sees them.
"For the eyes of our understanding were opened" and in understanding what we heard our faith was BORN in God.
When we achknowledged the truth as god showed us and embraced it!
But even as we are BORN into this world and to prosper and be effective in it we have to GROW and mature in our knowledge of it.
So likewise we who are BORN into the kingdom of God must also GROW.
Now if it is a NATURAL part of this world to so grow according to the nature of this life.
How much more then should it be according to the NEW NATURE which is of God!
For have "become PARTAKERS of His NATURE"!
Therefore in "FAITH ,BELIEVEING we do LIVE.
Yet not I (for we are dead)but Christ who lives in me".
How then can we say we CANNOT live a pure and holy life?
For in Christ we are SANCTAFIED and made pure by the blood of His cross.
But it is not me "but the Son who is in me,HE doeth the works"
To some who may contend with that use.
Does not the scriptures say.
"As the Father sent me ,so send I you into the world?

"Are not theologies philosophies"?
To some that may be.and if it is so there theology will be as empty as thier philosophies.
But what IS theology?
But the 'study' of God.
Now men may presume to study God like they do some microbe or as a dead butterfly pinned to the wall of thier own thinking.
But that is NOT what we should be doing.
The study of the scriptures should bring us to a knowledge of Him who wrote it!
So that we GROW in our understanding of HIM not a theory.
So as we do so our FAITH ALSO GROWS and we become more efective in the kingdom.
I do not take God as soemthing i can REDUCE to my thinking.
But by my studies RAISE mine UP to HIS!

You say our theology is differernt and that our interpreations are different.
True.
But are you then saying that we CANNOT arive at a knowledge of the truth!?
Now does it not say in Peter's epistle |I think that the scriptures are NOT for MANS interpretation?
Does it not also say that "what knoweth the things of man save the spirit that is IN man?
Likewise then what knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God"
Therefore if we CANNOT come to a RIGHT knowledge of scripture "By our own wisdom"
It folows then that without Gods Holy Spirit we cannot RIGHTLY INTERPRATE THE SCRIPTURES!
This confirmed when we also read and understand "That when the Holy Spirit shall come HE will LEAD youi into ALL truth and when you knwo the truth,the truth will make you free".
It fowlows then,that if you are willing to be LED even as i am then we should and shall come to the SAME understanding!
For it is the SAME Holy Spirit that leads us!
Now if we are Not His and we do not have the same Spirit then we will not arrive at the same place.
But if you or I do not arrive at the truth ,The only reasons are because a) we are not WILLING to be LED,b) that we do not HAVE the Holy Spirit,c) have not ASKED!
But that we SHOULD "come to aknowledge of the truth is clear for it is recorded in scripture the REBUKE to those who do not!
But on a more positive note is it not written that we are all to be of ONE mind?
If we do not see and understand the same things even as it is,then how can we be of the one mind!?
But if ALL are LED by the SAME Spirit of truth even as they are led,they will as it is clear in Ephesians do so and come "unto the perfect man.
Not only that If the church is the BODY of Christ and that same resurected BODY was raised by the Holy Spirit and quickened by the same.How then are we who ARE His who have "been RAISED TOGETHER WITH HIM" not have the SAME Spirit.
Then as there is only ONE Spirit.
It Folows then we are to be of the SAME MIND!

THEREFORE we are to be RENEWED in the SPIRIT of our minds"
"Bringing each thought into SUBJECTION to the MIND of Christ!
Why?
becasue it was Eves REASONING that was founded on the lie of the devil that got us into this mees in the fiorst place!
Why then is it supoposed that with mens own reasoning ALONE is it thought that we can arrive at the truth!
But by the Spirit of God we are changed into His likeness.
And we are to LEARN to think and see things as HE does.
Does that make us God?
of course not!
But look again at the beginning.
Did not GOd give them a part of HIS knowledge of what was good and evil?
It was the REJECTION of that knoweledge that caused thier downfall.
What does the scriptures say?
"MY people PERISH through lack of vision(what they SEE),Now most people stop there;but it goes on.......
"For theY have REJECTED KNOWLEDGE"
The knowledge of scripture is no guarentte of a knowledge of God!
But should lead to it!

GOD learns?

What does the scriptures say?
Who can instruct me"?

God needs to learn nothing!
If He did He cannot be perfect for if He has to learn SOEMTHING His knowledge then must be incomplete.
God knows the END from the beginning.
He looks not on the outward apearence but on the heart.
The Lord we read knew the hearts of all men.
For the Word is the revealer of the thoughtsd and intentions of the heart.
If God knows the number of hairs on our head do you not think He knows us completely!?
YES of course.
I would argue that He So knows the future from the beginning.
That He was already aware of what it would cost Him,before He said "let there be light"
And would also argue in some respects that the road to calvary started there.
"But for the joy set before Him.............."
Now you say that as the Lord had to learn as He grew up from a baby it proves God has to learn.
Not so.
First id like to say that from that argument it shows that we also have to GROW even as He did.
For he was born into this world so that we might be born into the next.
But as for The Lord Growing.
What was He?
But the SEED of God.
The WOrd of God made flesh.
Therefore the seed produces after its own kind.
But the seed contains within itself all that is required to do so.
So that which was unseen is made manifest.
God therfore was manifesting Himself into this world.
And The Lord is the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
Now the Lord also said "unless the seed fall into the ground and die,it abideth alone"
But if it does it bringeth forth much fruit.
Now we read in genesis that each seed bringeth forth after each own kind.
IS it not written that we are born of "INCORRUPTABLE SEED"?
Therefore as the seed that is sown is brings forth the life that is within it in our lives.
Being sons of God "do not sin"
"But if we do we have an advocate with the FATHER ....."
But the emphaisis of SCRIPITURE is NOT.....IF we sin....... But on SHALL NOT SIN!
Why?
"For if we walk inthe Spirit we shall NOT fullfill the lusts of the flesh....."
This new nature therefore will NEVER agree with our sinning if we do so.But if we folow the true nature that has been implanted we will not sin.

Learn?
NO.
It is we who must learn about GOD!
For when we shall see Him as HE is (then)then we will KNOW even as WE are known(now)
What is consideed the norm in modern day christianity.
"baptism,repentance,laying on of hands,dare I say also getting saved?
IS not the scriptures norm.
Paul said it was the MILK of the Word and we should be desiring the MEAT!
And that we are to "GO ON TO PERFECTION!"
God knows EXACTLY how will we act!
For the unregenerated nature is not Gods!
and is doomed.condemned and will if not repented of spend eternity in hell.
A seed will produce after its own kind remember?
And we are of the seed of Adam.
and so will produce the same fruits.
It was not and is not and never will be Gods will for men to be so.
But while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for us"
WHY?
That He who knew no sin,became sin that WE(who believe)might become (listen to this) THE RIGHTOUSNESS OF GOD.
and become PARTAKERS of HIS NATURE.
He was seperated from God so that we might be joined together WITH HIm.
He came from eternity past into time so thast we who lived in time might live in eternity future.

We are not to be the scriptures say "MERE MEN"!

But to rise up on eagles wings into the heavens.
If we are born again our NATURE is changed and as we ABIDE in the true vine so to will we bring forth FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND!

Jaltus
June 20th, 2002, 09:10 AM
Can you demonstrate that God had perfect foreknowledge of the fall of man or of the flood? Obviously, God had perfect foreknowledge of the life and crucifixition of Jesus Christ, and He has perfect foreknowledge of end times (Declaring the end from the beginning...) because He has predestined it.
Can you offer me some verses to support the claim that God foreknows every action in the universe? For that is truly where OV makes the distinction: That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them. Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.
I am surprised that nobody pointed out that this is a self-defeating argument.

How can God know that He will send Jesus to be redeemer from the beginning of the world and yet NOT know about the fall? It is a logical impossibility. There would be no need for Christ if there was no fall. Yet God knew from before creation that Jesus would be sent. Therefore, God knew about the fall.

You just disproved your own theology, DrD.

By the way, why are you in school if you are a Dr?

Surly-DwarF
June 20th, 2002, 11:31 AM
Jaltus,

Not only that, but if God can't foreknow the actions of man, He can't know that even if He does send Jesus to pay for our sins that a group of wicked men will condemn Him to death and specifically by crucifixion outside the city gates. And a lot of other junk besides.

geoff
June 20th, 2002, 06:18 PM
Well, I say. Someone had their landing lights switched on round here for a change :)

Jaltus
June 20th, 2002, 07:31 PM
Geoff,

Thanks, I think...

geoff
June 20th, 2002, 07:40 PM
Well I dont mean that you dont NORMALLY have your (personal) landing lights on... just that its refreshing to find someone with them turned on.... it seems discussion here is a bit like, quoting from the band considering lily, 'driving down, pikes peak, at 90 miles an hour in the dark with the headlights off...' if you know what I mean. :D

Jaltus
June 20th, 2002, 07:59 PM
Trust me. I have been arguing with Jerry.

If he ever uses the context of a passage, let alone using it correctly, I may have a heart attack.

drdeutsch
June 20th, 2002, 08:13 PM
Geoff,


I can do MORe than predict, I can KNOW

Geoff, do you have perfect foreknowledge? Are you saying that you have absolute, perfect foreknowledge of some or even all events? Are you ever surprised? Wait, what a stupid question. Of course you aren't. You aren't predicting future actions, you KNOW them. To what extent do you exercise this power?

God didn't make a mess of it. Man made a mess of it. Therefore, God is not an idiot. I fail to see where your line of reasoning comes. I never said that. Because God has given man freewill to do what he wants, God is not responsible for our freewill actions. If man destroys the earth or breeds with angels or turns from God and sins, it is man's fault. God is not an idiot.

Good post, Geralduk. Gives me a lot to think about.

Jaltus,
You're right. I overlooked that fact. I'll have to do some more research. It by no means, however, disproves OV. Men are fallible. Men's theologies (including yours) are fallible. I made a mistake. Be reasonable.
I never said I was a Dr. or a Ph.D. The "dr" happen to be my first two initials. That they are also a well-known abbreviation just happens to be the luck of the draw.

Surly-Dwarf,
God predestined and therefore foreknew the life and crucifixition of Christ. It's up for debate, and I have not studied it to a great extent, but I'd be willing to admit that, in this instance, God exercised limited control of Pontius Pilate's (and others) actions in order that the Crucifixition would take place as God wanted it or needed it to. That would also not defeat OV. Again, I'd have to study that a bit more.

You all have very great minds and give me a lot to think about.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Surly-DwarF
June 20th, 2002, 08:27 PM
drdeutsch,

I appreciate your apparent open-mindedness, but I think that in about your last 3 posts, particularly the last one, you've given away the candy store. Insofar as I understand the OV (which seems to be amazingly ambiguous and amorphous when it suits) the points that have been raised in fact do defeat the OV. Though that's no real accomplishment, because as someone said, it really is self-defeating. Its proponents want to have their cake and eat it too, if you ask me.


drdeutsch God predestined and therefore foreknew the life and crucifixition of Christ. It's up for debate, and I have not studied it to a great extent, but I'd be willing to bet that, in this instance, God exercised limited control of Pontius Pilate's (and others) actions in order that the Crucifixition would take place as God wanted it or needed it to. That would also not defeat OV. Again, I'd have to study that a bit more.

How and why did God predestine the life and crucifixion of Christ if He didn't know that man would sin? That would seem to make no sense whatsoever. You say it's up for debate, and true, almost anything is theoretically. In my book, it's not debatable. Next, I shudder to think what 1013 would have to say about your idea that in this case God exercised limited control of Pilate and Co.'s actions. That notion doesn't defeat the OV? Ok, well, maybe I'm dense....

Buenas noches,

Mike

geoff
June 20th, 2002, 08:36 PM
Jaltus,

Well the Paramedics heard about it, and they didnt seem worried, they went on holiday.

DrD:


do you have perfect foreknowledge? Are you saying that you have absolute, perfect foreknowledge of some or even all events? Are you ever surprised? Wait, what a stupid question. Of course you aren't. You aren't predicting future actions, you KNOW them. To what extent do you exercise this power?

I can certainly KNOW future events will happen, with certainty, and I can also PREDICT future events with certainty. If I can do it, why cant God? After all, His knowledge, wisdom, etc is far superior to mine. There isnt even a comparision, I am a creation of His.

In order for you to be right, you will have to prove that I can not know the future with any degree of certainty, and that does include prediction. Because if God can predict the future with perfection, He knows the future perfectly.


God didn't make a mess of it. Man made a mess of it. Therefore, God is not an idiot. I fail to see where your line of reasoning comes. I never said that. Because God has given man freewill to do what he wants, God is not responsible for our freewill actions. If man destroys the earth or breeds with angels or turns from God and sins, it is man's fault. God is not an idiot.

No, I didnt say that. I indicated that your view makes God an idiot because on one hand He SAYS he knows all the sin that has been and that will be (inherent in the Hebrew text of the passage), but on the other hand, he is surprised by it, as if He didnt know it, and has to 'change his mind'. And then, to make matters worse, He decides to destroy humanity because its so evil and he cant tolerate it, but all of a sudden this noah dude comes along and God has to back track AGAIN and let noah live, knowing that God is now going to look like a fool for letting sinful humanity continue on.

Then later, God says He is going to destroy Israel, obviously forgetting his own nature, and has to be reminded by Moses who He is, so that again He wouldnt look foolish.

What kind of a God is this? It seems He has Goldfish memory. Its just plain ridiculous, and OBVIOUSLY not what the passages are intended to teach.

Jaltus
June 20th, 2002, 09:02 PM
DrD,

how about using DR D, then? Less confusion.

Trust me when I say I KNOW my theology is wrong. I think (especially in the area of eschatology) that theology in general is a lot of guesswork and working from behind, for it is finite, fallible man trying to undersatnd the infinite and holy God, something we are bound to screw up somehow.

By the way, I appreciate that you can admit when you are wrong. that makes you one of the few on this board. Welcome to the intellectually honest crowd! Trust me, there is plenty of room, invite your friends.

God bless,

Jaltus

drdeutsch
June 20th, 2002, 09:21 PM
Jaltus,
It's a long story. At any rate, it's drdeutsch.

I make many mistakes. My theology is not perfect. I'm here to learn. Geoff, obviously, is not, but I appreciate your admission as well.
I can see that I must do much more studying!
Have a good weekend and God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

1013
June 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM
Many ov'ers do not believe that Jesus' role as redeemer from sin was in the plan before sin, or if it was, it was a contingency that may not have needed to have come into play.

Greg Boyd used to think this. but thanks to Dr. Sanders, he's come around on this one.

Ov'ers at least believe that the incarnation was part of the original plan but the sacrifice is contingent upon sin which truly may not have happened.


He can't know that even if He does send Jesus to pay for our sins that a group of wicked men will condemn Him to death and specifically by crucifixion outside the city gates.

of course he can know that. Not at the beginning and maybe not for a long time, but quite possibly long before it happened

1013
June 20th, 2002, 09:37 PM
Greg Boyd used to think this

so I don't confuse anyone, "this" refers pre creation planned sacrifice.

geoff
June 20th, 2002, 09:55 PM
DRD,

Oh I learn fine. However, I am educated enough to quickly assess what I need to assimilate, and what I dont, what is utter tripe, and what isnt.

I have in fact, learnt a considerable amount here. My views have changed considerably. When I started here I was a more extreme determinist than anyone but JoBeth.

I might seem arrogant to you, but I can assure you its not arrogance, its confidence. I know what I believe. Its simple. If you can prove me wrong, or throw me a curly one that causes me to rethink and do a bit of work (and a few ppl have), I will be the first to admit it.

Now, does that make you rest easier?
(btw, I have heard all of Sanders and Boyds arguments in 4 years, and many others, so far, none are convincing, or even a little bit scary)

jobeth
June 20th, 2002, 10:32 PM
Geoff:
You said: "I can certainly KNOW future events will happen, with certainty, and I can also PREDICT future events with certainty."
No, you can't. You only think you can.

For the true prophet, God can and does CAUSE his predictions to come true.
On the other hand, say you make a prediction and claim you KNOW that such and such an event will definitely occur. Couldn't God then cause things to happen so that your prediction will fail?

geralduk
June 21st, 2002, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by jobeth
Geoff:
You said: "I can certainly KNOW future events will happen, with certainty, and I can also PREDICT future events with certainty."
No, you can't. You only think you can.

For the true prophet, God can and does CAUSE his predictions to come true.
On the other hand, say you make a prediction and claim you KNOW that such and such an event will definitely occur. Couldn't God then cause things to happen so that your prediction will fail?

PROHECY IS HISTORY WRITTEN IN ADVANCE.

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 03:22 AM
God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical, that we have no choice but to obey Him.It's not even a choice. :D

geralduk
June 21st, 2002, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Surly-DwarF
drdeutsch,

I appreciate your apparent open-mindedness, but I think that in about your last 3 posts, particularly the last one, you've given away the candy store. Insofar as I understand the OV (which seems to be amazingly ambiguous and amorphous when it suits) the points that have been raised in fact do defeat the OV. Though that's no real accomplishment, because as someone said, it really is self-defeating. Its proponents want to have their cake and eat it too, if you ask me.



How and why did God predestine the life and crucifixion of Christ if He didn't know that man would sin? That would seem to make no sense whatsoever. You say it's up for debate, and true, almost anything is theoretically. In my book, it's not debatable. Next, I shudder to think what 1013 would have to say about your idea that in this case God exercised limited control of Pilate and Co.'s actions. That notion doesn't defeat the OV? Ok, well, maybe I'm dense....

Buenas noches,

Mike

geralduk
June 21st, 2002, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Edgar Caiña
It's not even a choice. :D

Thats not true.

WHOSOEVER will believe.

If you do not believe you CANNOT obey.

That you have a choice TO believe is given every time we are challanged by God to do so and we know that also.wether others do or no.

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 05:20 AM
I see the crucifixion as something which was already in the mind of God (a plan, so to speak) and that He knew from eternity past how costly the price would have to pay for the redemption of man in the event of a fall. If that would happen (the fall), God's plan was to send Jesus to die on the Cross.

I dont feel it's necessary for one to believe that Jesus was predestined to die. Because if He was, it would leave Jesus no choice but to wait for the actual event. But Jesus and Paul gave us at least a little room to believe other than the view that Jesus was predestined to die.
"And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39)Unless Jesus was making a pretension here, I would have to believe that His mind was not completely sold to His approaching death as far as this scenario was concerned and that He was still seriously hoping that the plan, somehow, be aborted, and therefore, the idea of a predestined death was possibly not in His mind. It would be disingenouos for Jesus to make an appeal to the Father this way knowing that His death was already a sealed fate for Him. The fact that He prayed such a prayer means that in the mind of Jesus it was still possible for the Father to grant His request, but because He was very submissive to the Father, He let the Father's will be done.


"the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8)If Paul's theology was that Jesus was predestined to die, I dont know how could he have said that.

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by geralduk


Thats not true.

WHOSOEVER will believe.

If you do not believe you CANNOT obey.

That you have a choice TO believe is given every time we are challanged by God to do so and we know that also.wether others do or no. When I said, "It was not even a choice," I was referring to the quote,
God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical, that we have no choice but to obey Him.Because if God sovereignly controls all events, both mental (i guess that includes man's choice) and physical, then it's not really a choice. I think it's better said this way: God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical, that we ARE PROGRAMMED (or controlled, or manipulated) to obey Him.

Jaltus
June 21st, 2002, 08:30 AM
Edgar,

Paul could say that because it is an assertion for the sake of argument, not a real condition (for all you fellow Greek geeks, it is a fourth class conditional, "ean" with a subjunctive).

jobeth
June 21st, 2002, 10:18 AM
Edgar:
Yes, you could say that.
The reason I use the term "no choice" is to correct the notion that we do have a choice whether to obey or not.

How can you disobey an Omnicausal God?

Nothing is impossible with God.

Surly-DwarF
June 21st, 2002, 12:17 PM
I said:


He can't know that even if He does send Jesus to pay for our sins that a group of wicked men will condemn Him to death and specifically by crucifixion outside the city gates.

1013 replied thusly:


of course he can know that. Not at the beginning and maybe not for a long time, but quite possibly long before it happened

Well, ok then. Glad you cleared that up for us. Would you care to explain exactly how He can know this, and specifically not at hte beginning, maybe not for a long time, but quite possibly long before it happened? I want you to know that the above is essentially a non-answer and is totally insufficient to dismiss the charge. Although I have little hope of getting you to acknowledge it.

1013
June 21st, 2002, 01:25 PM
Would you care to explain exactly how He can know this

the most simple answer is that he destined it. When? not at the beginning but when man's evil was sufficient such that such a prediction was possible, if there was a prediction at all.

As I've said, I have no problem with God destining the specific way in which evil works out provided that the necessity of the evil is not traced back to him.

However, I don't know that we should believe that this was destined. I'm fine with it if there is a scripture that you could point to, and I'm sure that there is, but I doubt it is a prophecy such that it had to come to pass. If it was though, then of course that is the earliest that it was destined.

So how can God know that there would be evil men to do such. one reasonable answer is out of statistical necessity, which is a necessity that allows for indeterminism and does not require reprobation or that any particular should sin without lending himself to a certain degree of depravity such that he should willingly take an innocent man to be condemned to death.

That necessity arose from the rebellion of God's people though and was not foreknown before the people went down a certain road.

And there is always the possibility that this was a conditional prophecy, (again if there was such a predictive prophecy at all).

concerning an earlier post of yours.


Though I’d note that the WC also, in addition to that bit you just quoted, states that God does this in such a way that no violence is done to the will of the creature, etc.

the problem that I was citing is not directly with the WC's view of free will. It's with the role of foreknowledge that you posited earlier.


If we consider God and what He knows prior to Creation, and grant that He has foreknowledge of everything that will come to pass, whether those things will be caused by Him directly or freely performed by creatures, then if He proceeds and effectuates that potential creation, by virtue of His certain foreknowledge, everything that comes to pass has been predestined.

The WC explicitely says that God does not predestine according to foreknowledge. For many Calvinist theologians, including Calvin I believe, God's foreknowledge is based solely on predestination and there is no fact of the matter about the way creation will be apart from that. God doesn't look at the free actions that will be taken if He does such and such. He ordains everything precisely according to his will. What you've described sounds more like molinism.

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 06:30 PM
How can you disobey an Omnicausal God?Of course in your view it is impossible to disobey God since it is God who causes the disobedience and not you. But the Bible never teaches that. It is man who disobeys and God is up for judgment because of this disobedience. How could God judge something He causes to happen (i.e., disobedience)? That is untenable unless of course God Himself is in a charade and just playing with man.

geoff
June 21st, 2002, 06:41 PM
Edgar,

Just remember that calvinists (orthodox ones.. lets say conservative) would consider JoBeth to be heretical.

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Edgar,

Paul could say that because it is an assertion for the sake of argument, not a real condition (for all you fellow Greek geeks, it is a fourth class conditional, "ean" with a subjunctive). I dont know Greek, maybe you are correct and maybe not. But I understand Paul's assertion as something a possibility of happening, that Christ could have not been crucified. Are you saying that there's no weight in Paul's word because that's impossible to happen?

Edgar Caiña
June 21st, 2002, 06:54 PM
it cuts like a knife, geoff... watch out, he'll get back at you :eek:

geoff
June 21st, 2002, 06:59 PM
Edgar,

She already knows. JoBeth has her own little branch of Christianity, that we affectionately call 'jobethianism'.

Edgar Caiña
June 22nd, 2002, 03:55 AM
geoff,

Im just curious, is joBeth a "she"?

geoff
June 22nd, 2002, 04:59 AM
Beth is usually short for Elizabeth... I cant think of a european guys name that it would fit... it would be a very unfortunate name for a boy..

heh

jobeth
June 22nd, 2002, 08:29 PM
Edgar:
Exacty. How can God judge something as wrong if He caused it to happen? That is why those who believe and know God as He truly is (Sole Creator and Agent of ALL things) are not condemned. It is God who hath declared us (all) NOT GUILTY.

But unbelievers deny this truth and are condemned, not by HIM, but by their own mouths - because they confess before God that they have indeed sinned of their own will and agency.

And in fact, it their confession that keeps the truth about God from being known in the world.

They call Him Lord, but they don't believe He is LORD.

Don't you know that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? That the penalty for ALL SIN has already been paid for by the ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, who is ultimately responsible for ALL THINGS? That by Him and through Him are ALL THINGS? And that it is IN HIM that all things consist and have their being and existence?

Including you and all that you do?

Edgar Caiña
June 23rd, 2002, 12:20 AM
Hi jobeth,

I'll have no problem with your view if you would also believe and agree that everything that happens in the world is mere pretension or charade on the part of God, and that there in no real or genuine acccountability on the part of man to God. But if you are going to say that there is real and genuine accountability, then I think, there is inconsistency in your view.

For example, you said
But unbelievers deny this truth and are condemned, not by HIM, but by their own mouths - because they confess before God that they have indeed sinned of their own will and agency.But the reality (according to your view) is that unbeliever do not deny that truth by themselves, rather God caused them to deny that truth. They are also not condemned by their own mouths because it is God who causes them to open their mouth and causes them to confess what they confess. In such case, there is no real or genuine guilt on their part.

"they have indeed sinned of their own will and agency." This cannot be in your view if you are to be consistent.

What you've said above could be best stated this way according to your view:
But GOD CAUSES THEM TO deny this truth and are condemned, not by HIM, but by GOD CAUSING their own mouths - because GOD CAUSES THEM TO confess before God that they have indeed sinned BECAUSE GOD CAUSED THEM TO.

geralduk
June 23rd, 2002, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Edgar Caiña
I see the crucifixion as something which was already in the mind of God (a plan, so to speak) and that He knew from eternity past how costly the price would have to pay for the redemption of man in the event of a fall. If that would happen (the fall), God's plan was to send Jesus to die on the Cross.

I dont feel it's necessary for one to believe that Jesus was predestined to die. Because if He was, it would leave Jesus no choice but to wait for the actual event. But Jesus and Paul gave us at least a little room to believe other than the view that Jesus was predestined to die. If Paul's theology was that Jesus was predestined to die, I dont know how could he have said that.

This pasaage is misunderstood.
He was not praying so that the cross could be avoided BUT that The Scriptures MIGHT be fullfilledand He WOULD die on the cross.
The problem was that He was dying THERE in the garden and at the wrong time.
For with all the pressures that were on Him and the weight of the worlds sin already pressing in upon Him,He was DYING.
So He was not praying to avoid calvary but that the cup of DEATH would pass fromHim
And we read in peter that "In that He feared He was heard" and angels came and inistered strength to HIm.

Edgar Caiña
June 23rd, 2002, 04:40 AM
He was not praying so that the cross could be avoidedHow do you understand the phrase, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me.."?

geoff
June 23rd, 2002, 04:43 AM
Edgar, if it was possible, He wouldnt have needed to say 'IF".

geralduk
June 23rd, 2002, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Edgar Caiña
How do you understand the phrase, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me.."?

It was the cup of DEATH.

Edgar Caiña
June 23rd, 2002, 04:51 AM
Geoff, i think the use of "IF" was just right because Christ didn't know if it was possible. Because if he was sure or certain that it could happen that way (the cup pass from Him), He would not say, "Father, if it is possible", but "Father, let this cup pass from me."

Edgar Caiña
June 23rd, 2002, 04:53 AM
Geralduk, exactly, it was the cup of death, and that was the very thing that Christ was praying that if possible be avoided.

geoff
June 23rd, 2002, 02:04 PM
Edgar,

Its quite clear that there are things that Jesus didnt know, He said so Himself. Thats got nothing to do with it. You are reading meaning into this passage it can not support, and in fact, has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make.

If you read the parallel accounts, you read:
"Father all things are possible for you, if it were possible, I ask you to take this from me, and yet it isnt, let your will be done". (my paraphrase).

The point is NOT that Jesus doesnt know something, but rather that HE DOES know it is not possible for the cup to be taken from him. ALL things ARE possible for God, but there is no way around this one. It HAS to be done, it was destined from the beginning to happen.

Edgar Caiña
June 23rd, 2002, 06:26 PM
I dont know, geoff. But to me it appears that Jesus was serious with His prayer. And if He really knew that it's NOT POSIBLE to happen, the only thing that bothers me is that why did He pray this way three times? The only implication I get from His prayer is the hope for the possibility of this cup to pass from Him.

geoff
June 23rd, 2002, 06:49 PM
Edgar,

Again, it is neither the authors intention, nor Jesus' intention to show that it was possible for anything to happen other than what would happen. It is was, it would be a contradiction of Scriptures that prophecy the event, and others that say it was 'according to the definate plan and foreknowledge of God'.

jobeth
June 23rd, 2002, 08:39 PM
Edgar:
I deny that everything that happens in the world is mere pretension or charade on the part of God. God has been very clear to state that He's the One in Charge, saying "I am the Lord". So if anyone is confused on that point, it is not God's fault.

So too, I disagree that there in no real or genuine accountability on the part of man to God. In fact, we are responsible to make our confession to God. It is to Him, by Divine Decree, that we must give an account of our deeds. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

My hope is that you would give a truthful account after the similtude of Job. That man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil of whom God said:

"My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."

God has already spoken concerning the works of His hands, saying "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Evildoers worship not the Lord of Heaven and Earth, to whom be glory for ever. Nor do they seek to know the Lord, in whom we live, and move, and have our being; of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things. To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

They deny that there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him who also said "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. But men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

They despise His Authority and Government, Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of the saints.

The righteous know that all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, because we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. And we know that all things work together for good according to his purpose which He will accomplish when he shall have put down all who oppose His rule and authority and power, having proved all things subject unto Him.

For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The wicked deny the truth we speak and will not hear us. They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, who serve their own lusts and rejoice in the works of their own hands.

So God has said, "I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands."

According to their works, meaning things done not of God, but of their own agency. For all workers of iniquity boast of themselves and repent not of the works of their hands, neither will they give glory to God.

Having forgotten that God resisteth the proud, but gives grace to the humble, saying "But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD."

Soby whom do they deny the Lord and His agency in all things? Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Why, then, if they heard have they no understanding? "They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

And so having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, ( the times before of this ignorance God winked at) but now the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, and He commandeth all men every where to repent, saying " The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

This gospel was first preached by Jesus of Nazarath, the faithful witness, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: whereof God hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is eternal life: To know God as He truly is, and to know Jesus Christ whom He has sent to bear witness to the truth by his own blood.

geralduk
June 24th, 2002, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Edgar Caiña
Geralduk, exactly, it was the cup of death, and that was the very thing that Christ was praying that if possible be avoided.
It was NOT that He was avoiding death but that He KNEW that He must not die THAT night!
But tomorow!

Edgar Caiña
June 24th, 2002, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by geralduk

It was NOT that He was avoiding death but that He KNEW that He must not die THAT night!
But tomorow! :) ;) :D

Edgar Caiña
June 24th, 2002, 07:40 AM
Let me clarrify again your position. Do you believe that God is the cause of everything that happens in the world from the flying of a single particle of dust into the air to the damnation of souls to hell? Is this what you believe?

Edgar Caiña
June 24th, 2002, 07:53 AM
Geoff, I appreciate your inputs, but I still have questions. Again, geoff, why did He pray that way? What was His purpose of praying the same prayer not once, but thrice? If the author's and Jesus' intention was not to show any possibility for the cup of death to pass from Him, what was their intention? Was Jesus mere acting in that scenario? Was His prayer insincere and doesn't it contain any truth for us to believe in?

geralduk
June 24th, 2002, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Edgar Caiña
Let me clarrify again your position. Do you believe that God is the cause of everything that happens in the world from the flying of a single particle of dust into the air to the damnation of souls to hell? Is this what you believe?

The problem in seeking to answer such a question is that the very question starts out wrong and to answer it in the negative or posotive would therefore be wrong also.

For the proposition carries so many OTHER points with it.
For instance.
Is He the cause of EVERYTHING.
when he is clearly not the casue of the evil in this world.
Yet also He has by His wisdom created the world and all the principles by which the natural world works.
So a person without understanding might argue that the floods,drought,and other terrible disiasters that are coming upon the world are His fault.
Not so either.
For the ROOT cause is mans rebelion and sin.
So to is it mans fault if he wills himself to hell.
For Though God created hell for the devil and his angels.
IF man will not folow God they are ultimately folowing the devil and will therefore finish up at the same place.
What men seems to hate? so much is the thought that God is bigger than thier sin and death.
That in the final analysis Sin and death are defeated.and the 'liberty' that the devil promises through sin,is no liberty at all but bondage that ultimatly leads to their destruction.
Men ARE free to do as thye wish,But let him not think we he will not have to give an account to what He has done.

geoff
June 24th, 2002, 03:34 PM
Edgar,

The purpose in praying it 3 times is to reveal that it is impossible for anything but what was planned and destined to happen, to happen.

After 3 times, the reader/hearer should have it clear that it was a certain thing.

Jaltus
June 24th, 2002, 04:27 PM
Also, Jesus was not a moron. He really did not want to suffer and die, though He wanted the result.

How many children complain about going to the doctor, asking time and again to not have to go, even though they know they will end up going and they know it is for their own good?

Jesus was asking to be let out of the torture and horrible death suffered on the cross. If you think Him at all human, it only makes sense.

Does this support the OV? No, it supports the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Jesus' as fully God and fully man. It does not fit one theological persuasion in regards to God's foreknowledge over another system.

Honestly, does it count against Calvinism or Arminianism that Jesus did not know when the end was going to be? No!

Why is that? Jesus was limited in the incarnation, as we all know. Therefore, trying to prove the OV by Jesus being human is just a misapplication and understanding of salvation-history.

EDIT: spelling